Key result
Cerebral embolic protection during TAVI fails to reduce 30-day stroke risk versus control.
Why the study?
Perioperative stroke remains a devastating complication after TAVI, and while some studies suggest cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) may reduce stroke rates, whether they should be routinely used remains unclear.
Does a cerebral embolic protection device reduce the risk of stroke in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation?
Meta-Analysis (n=3,979)
Does a cerebral embolic protection device reduce the risk of stroke in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation?
Relative Risk: 0.84 (95% CI 0.63–1.12)
p-value: p=0.23
The routine use of cerebral embolic protection devices during TAVI does not significantly reduce the risk of 30-day stroke, though specific device types may warrant further investigation.
Aims: Perioperative stroke remains a devastating complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), using cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) during TAVI may reduce stroke rate according to some studies. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis and may suggest whether CPED should be routinely used during TAVI. Methods and results: Studies were included which compared the outcome of stroke when with or without CEPD during TAVI, random controlled trials (RCTs) only, and followed up for at least 30 days. The primary end point was stroke. The risk of stroke at 30-days was no significantly difference in using CEPD during TAVI compared with control: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12, p = 0.23, I2=9%. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the type of CEPD. There were no significantly differences neither using I&LCCA type nor TMCA type compared with control: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.00, p = 0.05, I2=25%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.83, p = 0.51, I2=0%. Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, there was no significant evidence indicated CEPD can reduce the risk of stroke risk during TAVI. However, subgroup analysis of I&LCCA type group P=0.05, according to the basis of the 95% CI around this outcome, it is hard to rule out the efficacy of CEPD during TAVI. Maybe with large sample size, one valve type only, one outcome definition only, multicenter studies and extend the retention time of CEPD, the efficacy of CEPD would be proofed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) (n=3,979). Cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) vs. Control (without CEPD) was evaluated on Stroke at 30 days (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12, p=0.23). Using a cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation did not significantly reduce the risk of stroke at 30 days compared to control (RR 0.84).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: