Key result
CEPD use during TAVR for bicuspid aortic stenosis is not associated with lower stroke or TIA risk.
Why the study?
Although cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) use during TAVR did not reduce procedural stroke in the PROTECTED-TAVR trial, it remained unclear whether high-risk subgroups such as patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis derive benefit from CEPD in preventing cerebrovascular events.
Does the use of a cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) reduce the rate of cerebrovascular events (stroke or transient ischemic attack) in patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR?
Cohort (n=257)
No
Does the use of a cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) reduce the rate of cerebrovascular events (stroke or transient ischemic attack) in patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR?
In this single-center retrospective cohort of patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR, cerebral embolic protection device use was not associated with a reduction in in-hospital or 30-day stroke or transient ischemic attack.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CEPD does not reduce stroke in bicuspid TAVR patients; extends overall trial null result to this high-risk subgroup.
Background In the PROTECTED-TAVR randomized controlled trial, use of cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) did not reduce procedural stroke. It is, however, not clear whether certain high-risk subgroups like young patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis may derive benefit from CEPD. Purpose This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of CEPD in preventing cerebrovascular events during TAVR in patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 3505 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR at a single center between 2016-2020 and identified 257 patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Baseline demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics were stratified by CEPD use. We performed Cox Proportional Hazards regression analysis to examine whether the use of CEPD in patients was associated with a lower rate of cerebrovascular events (stroke or transient ischemic attack) after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results Among 257 patients receiving TAVR for bicuspid aortic stenosis, median age was 74.7 years (IQR 66.9 – 83.2 years) and 62.6% were men. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between patients with (n=94) and without CEPD (n=163) (Figure 1a). In univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack in-hospital or at 30-days (Figure 1b). In adjusted analysis, CEPD use (HR 1.55 [95% CI, 0.1-3.8)] was not associated with a decreased rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack. Conclusion These findings indicate that CEPD use is not associated with lower rates of cerebrovascular events in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis and add to the growing body of evidence that questions the utility of CEPD during TAVR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Severe bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR (n=257). Cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) vs. Transfemoral TAVR without CEPD was evaluated on Cerebrovascular events (composite of stroke or transient ischemic attack) in-hospital or at 30 days (HR 1.55, 95% CI 0.1-3.8). CEPD use during TAVR for bicuspid aortic stenosis was not associated with decreased stroke or transient ischemic attack (adjusted HR 1.55; 95% CI 0.1-3.8).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: