Routine use of the Sentinel Cerebral protection system during TAVR was associated with a 0% stroke rate compared to 6.3% without the device (p=0.05), without increasing procedure time.
Cohort (n=157)
No
Does the routine use of a cerebral protection device (Sentinel CPS) reduce stroke and procedural complications in patients undergoing TAVR?
Routine use of the Sentinel cerebral protection system during TAVR is feasible, does not prolong procedure time, and may reduce the incidence of periprocedural stroke.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 6.3%
p-value: p=0.05
Background Stroke is a major concern in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The introduction of a cerebral protection devices may counteract the evolution towards minimally invasive TAVR. At this time, there is insufficient data to support the routine use of these devices.Methods We aimed to evaluate the outcome of the routine use of the Sentinel Cerebral protection system® (CPS) in patients undergoing TAVR, after completing a CT-based screening process for feasibility of Sentinel implantation. We report our initial experience with the routine implementation of the Sentinel CPS in all anatomically suitable patients undergoing TAVR. We retrospectively compared the procedural characteristics and outcomes between all TAVR patients treated with (n = 78) and without (n = 79) intended Sentinel.Results The Sentinel CPS could successfully be deployed in 99% of intended cases after CT feasibility screening. TAVR procedures with Sentinel CPS were not longer than procedures without Sentinel use (89 ± 20 versus 120 ± 50 min, p = 0.007). Sentinel CPS use was not associated with an increased risk of procedural complications. Stroke was observed in none (0%) of the Sentinel CPS patients, and in 6.3% of the non-Sentinel CPS patients (p = 0.05). The finding of stroke was associated with a high risk of early postprocedural mortality: 60% of stroke patients died within 3 months.Conclusion Routine use of the Sentinel CPS in CT-screened TAVR patients is feasible with high procedural success, without significant adverse events and without counteracting the evolution towards minimally invasive TAVR. Clinically relevant stroke was observed in none of the Sentinel CPS patients.
Kemp et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n=157). Sentinel Cerebral protection system (CPS) vs. Without intended Sentinel CPS was evaluated on Stroke (p=0.05). Routine use of the Sentinel Cerebral protection system during TAVR was associated with a 0% stroke rate compared to 6.3% without the device (p=0.05), without increasing procedure time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: