Key result
TriGuard 3 shows zero periprocedural strokes in cardiac interventions with intracardiac thrombosis.
Why the study?
Embolic cerebral protection devices are not routinely used during electrophysiological interventions involving intracardiac thrombosis.
Case Report (n=8)
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change practice; hypothesis-generating for cerebral protection in high-risk intracardiac thrombosis cases.
Embolic cerebral protection devices are not routinely used in clinical practice during electrophysiological interventions. We report a case series of patients with intracardiac thrombosis undergoing a percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure and a ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation supported by TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection Device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marcon et al. (2023) conducted a case report in Intracardiac thrombosis (n=8). TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection Device was evaluated on Periprocedural stroke or filter-related complications. The TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection Device resulted in no periprocedural strokes or device-related complications in 8 patients with intracardiac thrombosis undergoing cardiac interventions.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: