Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Reddy R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10533415 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is the therapy of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis who have prohibitive or high surgical risk. However, the benefit of TAVR is attenuated by the occurrence of major disabling stroke which is associated with increased mortality and early-reduced quality of life. Despite advances in TAVR technology, stroke remains a serious complication that is associated with significant negative outcomes. The majority of these occur in the acute phase following TAVR where cerebral embolic events are frequent. Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) have been developed to minimize the risk of peri-procedural ischemic stroke during TAVR. CEPD have the potential to reduce intraprocedural burden of new silent ischemic injury. In this review we outline the etiology and incidence of stroke in TAVR population, and systematically review current evidence for cerebral embolic protection devices.
| S-EPMC6205957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background There was limited high-quality evidence that illuminated the efficiency of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, patients with BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR with or without CEP were identified by querying the National Inpatient Sample database. The primary end point was any stroke during the hospitalization. The composite safety end point included any in-hospital death and stroke. We applied propensity score-matched analysis to minimize standardized mean differences of baseline variables and compare in-hospital outcomes. From July 2017 to December 2020, 4610 weighted hospitalizations with BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR were identified, of which 795 were treated with CEP. There was a significant increase in the CEP use rate for BAV stenosis (P-trend <0.001). A total of 795 discharges with CEP use were propensity score matched to 1590 comparable discharges but without CEP. CEP use was associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital stroke (1.3% versus 3.8%; P<0.001), which in multivariable regression was also independently associated with the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio=0.38 [95% CI, 0.18-0.71]; P=0.005) and the safety end point (adjusted odds ratio=0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.68] P=0.001). Meanwhile, no significant difference was found in the cost of hospitalization ($46 629 versus $45 147; P=0.18) or the risk of vascular complications (1.9% versus 2.5%; P=0.41). Conclusions This observational study supported CEP use for BAV stenosis, which was independently associated with less in-hospital stroke without burdening the patients with a high hospitalization cost.
| S-EPMC10356028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe cerebral embolic protection (CEP) device captures embolic debris during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the impact of CEP on stroke severity following TAVR remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether CEP was associated with reduced severity of stroke following TAVR.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 2839 consecutive patients (mean age: 79.2 ± 9.5 years, females: 41.5%) who underwent transfemoral TAVR at our institution between 2013 and 2020. We categorized patients into Sentinel CEP users and nonusers. Neuroimaging data were reviewed and the final diagnosis of a cerebrovascular event was adjudicated by a neurologist blinded to the CEP use or nonuse. We compared the incidence and severity (assessed by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS]) of stroke through 72 h post-TAVR or discharge between the two groups using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) of propensity scores.ResultsOf the eligible patients, 1802 (63.5%) received CEP during TAVR and 1037 (36.5%) did not. After adjustment for patient characteristics by stabilized IPTW, the rate of overall stroke was numerically lower in CEP users than in CEP nonusers, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (0.49% vs. 1.18%, p = 0.064). However, CEP users had significantly lower rates of moderate-or-severe stroke (NIHSS ≥ 6: 0.11% vs. 0.69%, p = 0.013) and severe stroke (NIHSS ≥ 15: 0% vs. 0.29%, p = 0.046). Stroke following CEP use (n = 8), compared with stroke following CEP nonuse (n = 15), tended to carry a lower NIHSS (median [IQR], 4.0 [2.0-7.0] vs. 7.0 [4.5-19.0], p = 0.087). Four (26.7%) out of 15 patients with stroke following CEP nonuse died within 30 days, with no death after stroke following CEP use.ConclusionsCEP use may be associated with attenuated severity of stroke despite no significant difference in overall stroke incidence compared with CEP nonuse. This finding is considered hypothesis-generating and needs to be confirmed in large prospective studies.
| S-EPMC9805232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cerebrovascular events following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is one of the most devastating complications. Several studies with magnetic resonance or cerebral filters have demonstrated the universal brain embolization after TAVI, in the majority of patients clinically silent. Embolic protection devices (EPD) have been developed as a mechanical barrier to prevent these emboli to reach cerebral vasculature and potentially reduce neurological events. We review the current evidence about EPD in relation to histopathological and cerebral imaging findings and neurological events.
| S-EPMC6242920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStroke remains a devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which has persisted despite refinements in technique and increased operator experience. While cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been developed to mitigate this risk, data regarding their impact on stroke and other outcomes after TAVR are limited.MethodsWe performed an observational study using data from the Society for Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Patients were included if they underwent elective or urgent transfemoral TAVR between January 2018 and December 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. To adjust for confounding, the association between EPD use and clinical outcomes was evaluated using instrumental variable analysis, a technique designed to support causal inference from observational data, with site-level preference for EPD use within the same quarter of the procedure as the instrument. We also performed a propensity score-based secondary analysis using overlap weights.ResultsOur analytic sample included 123 186 patients from 599 sites. The use of EPD during TAVR increased over time, reaching 28% of sites and 13% of TAVR procedures by December 2019. There was wide variation in EPD use across hospitals, with 8% of sites performing >50% of TAVR procedures with an EPD and 72% performing no procedures with an EPD in the last quarter of 2019. In our primary analysis using the instrumental variable model, there was no association between EPD use and in-hospital stroke (adjusted relative risk, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.68-1.13]; absolute risk difference, -0.15% [95% CI, -0.49 to 0.20]). However, in our secondary analysis using the propensity score-based model, EPD use was associated with 18% lower odds of in-hospital stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]; absolute risk difference, -0.28% [95% CI, -0.52 to -0.03]). Results were generally consistent across the secondary end points, as well as subgroup analyses.ConclusionsIn this nationally representative observational study, we did not find an association between EPD use for TAVR and in-hospital stroke in our primary instrumental variable analysis, and found only a modestly lower risk of in-hospital stroke in our secondary propensity-weighted analysis. These findings provide a strong basis for large-scale randomized, controlled trials to test whether EPDs provide meaningful clinical benefit for patients undergoing TAVR.
| S-EPMC8184596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device (CEP) aims to reduce the risk of stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matched (PSM) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effect of the Sentinel CEP to prevent strokes during TAVR.MethodsEligible trials were searched through PubMed, ISI Web of science databases, Cochrane database, and proceedings of major congresses. Primary outcome was stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major or life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications and acute kidney injury at discharge. Fixed and random effect models were used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and absolute risk difference (ARD).ResultsA total of 4066 patients from 4 RCTs (3'506 patients) and 1 PSM study (560 patients) were included. Use of Sentinel CEP was successful in 92% of patients and was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95, p = 0.02. ARD: -1.3%, 95% CI: -2.3 - -0.2, p = 0.02, number needed to treat (NNT) = 77), and a reduced risk of disabling stroke (RR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.17-0.65. ARD: -0.9%, 95% CI: -1.5 - -0.3, p = 0.004, NNT = 111). Use of Sentinel CEP was associated with a lower risk of major or life-threatening bleeding (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.87, p = 0.02). Risk for nondisabling stroke (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.62-1.40, p = 0.73), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.35-1.40, p = 0.31), major vascular complications (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.33-1.67, p = 0.47) and acute kidney injury (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50, p = 0.40) were similar.ConclusionsThe use of CEP during TAVR was associated with lower risks of any stroke and disabling stroke with an NNT of 77 and 111, respectively.
| S-EPMC10276451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsCerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices are employed to capture embolic debris and reduce the risk of stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Evidence is mixed regarding the safety and efficacy of CEP. We aimed to summarize the safety and effectiveness of CEP use during TAVR.MethodsElectronic databases, including PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase, were searched using relevant search terms for articles relating to CEP. All relevant data from 20 studies were extracted into a standardized form. Statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.4. Odds ratio (OR) or mean differences (MDs) were used to estimate the desired outcome with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsTwenty studies (eight randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 210,871 patients (19,261 in the CEP group and 191,610 in TAVR without the CEP group) were included. The use of CEP was associated with a lower odds of 30-day mortality by 39% (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.53-0.70) and stroke by 31% (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.52-0.92). Comparing devices, benefit in terms of mortality and stroke was observed with the use of the Sentinel device (Boston Scientific), but not among other devices. No differences were observed in the outcomes of acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding events, or major vascular complications between groups. When only RCTs were included, there were no observed differences in the primary or secondary outcomes for CEP versus no CEP use during TAVR.ConclusionsThe totality of evidence suggests a net benefit for the use of CEP, weighted by studies in which the Sentinal device was used. However, given the RCT subanalysis, additional evidence is needed to identify patients at the highest risk of stroke for optimal decision-making.
| S-EPMC10314975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOutcomes data on the use of cerebral embolic protection devices (CPDs) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain limited. Previous randomized trials were underpowered for primary outcomes of stroke prevention and mortality.MethodsThe National Inpatient Sample and Nationwide Readmissions Database were queried from 2017 to 2018 to study utilization and inpatient mortality, neurological complications (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and transient ischemic attack), procedural complications, resource utilization, and 30-day readmissions with and without use of CPD. A 1:3 ratio propensity score matched model was created.ResultsAmong 108,315 weighted encounters, CPD was used in 4380 patients (4.0%). Adjusted mortality was lower in patients undergoing TAVR with CPD (1.3% vs. 0.5%, p < 0.01). Neurological complications (2.5% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.01), hemorrhagic stroke (0.2% vs. 0%, p < 0.01) and ischemic stroke (2.2% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.01) were also lower in TAVR with CPD. Multiple logistic regression showed CPD use was associated with lower adjusted mortality (odds ratio (OR], 0.34 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.52), p < 0.01) and lower adjusted neurological complications (OR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.85], p < 0.01). On adjusted analysis, 30-day all-cause readmissions (Hazard ratio, HR 0.839, [95% CI, 0.773-0.911], p < 0.01) and stroke (HR, 0.727 [95% CI, 0.554-0.955), p = 0.02) were less likely in TAVR with CPD.ConclusionWe report real-world data on utilization and in-hospital outcomes of CPD use in TAVR. CPD use is associated with lower inpatient mortality, neurological, and clinical complications as compared to TAVR without CPD.
| S-EPMC8578314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited studies are available which aim to identify patient populations that would potentially benefit from the use of cerebral embolic protection devices (CPDs) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to analyze the impact of CPD use during TAVR among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsData on adult TAVR patients with a concomitant diagnosis of AF was obtained from the 2017-2020 National Readmissions Database. Stroke, major stroke, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day readmission rates were compared between the CPD and no-CPD cohorts in a propensity score matched analysis. Association of CPD use with adverse events was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression models.ResultsOf 100,928 eligible TAVR patients with AF, CPD was used in 6.9% of patients with a mean age of 80 years. CPD use was independently associated with lower overall stroke (1.7% vs. 2.2%; odds ratio [OR] 0.81 [95% CI 0.68-0.98]; p = 0.032), major stroke (1.2% vs. 1.8%; OR 0.69 [0.55-0.86]; p = 0.001), in-hospital mortality (0.9 vs. 1.5%; OR 0.56 [0.43-0.72]; p < 0.001), and lower 30-day readmission rates (12.7% vs. 14.7%; OR 0.87 [0.81-0.94]; p < 0.001). Reduction in adverse events with CPD was noted in high-volume but not in low-volume TAVR centers.ConclusionsThe present point towards clear benefits of CPD use among patients with AF undergoing TAVR. In anatomically eligible patients, the potential benefit of debris capture may be considered especially as younger and lower risk patients become eligible for TAVR. Data from future trials and registries are required to further corroborate our findings.
| S-EPMC11864126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceStroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and adverse effects of cerebral embolic protection devices in reducing ischemic central nervous system (CNS) injury during SAVR.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial of patients with calcific aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR at 18 North American centers between March 2015 and July 2016. The end of follow-up was December 2016.InterventionsUse of 1 of 2 cerebral embolic protection devices (n = 118 for suction-based extraction and n = 133 for intra-aortic filtration device) vs a standard aortic cannula (control; n = 132) at the time of SAVR.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction at 7 days (± 3 days) after the procedure. Secondary end points included a composite of mortality, clinical ischemic stroke, and acute kidney injury within 30 days after surgery; delirium; mortality; serious adverse events; and neurocognition.ResultsAmong 383 randomized patients (mean age, 73.9 years; 38.4% women; 368 [96.1%] completed the trial), the rate of freedom from CNS infarction at 7 days was 32.0% with suction-based extraction vs 33.3% with control (between-group difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -13.8% to 11.2%) and 25.6% with intra-aortic filtration vs 32.4% with control (between-group difference, -6.9%; 95% CI, -17.9% to 4.2%). The 30-day composite end point was not significantly different between suction-based extraction and control (21.4% vs 24.2%, respectively; between-group difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -13.5% to 7.9%]) nor between intra-aortic filtration and control (33.3% vs 23.7%; between-group difference, 9.7% [95% CI, -1.2% to 20.5%]). There were no significant differences in mortality (3.4% for suction-based extraction vs 1.7% for control; and 2.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 1.5% for control) or clinical stroke (5.1% for suction-based extraction vs 5.8% for control; and 8.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 6.1% for control). Delirium at postoperative day 7 was 6.3% for suction-based extraction vs 15.3% for control (between-group difference, -9.1%; 95% CI, -17.1% to -1.0%) and 8.1% for intra-aortic filtration vs 15.6% for control (between-group difference, -7.4%; 95% CI, -15.5% to 0.6%). Mortality and overall serious adverse events at 90 days were not significantly different across groups. Patients in the intra-aortic filtration group vs patients in the control group experienced significantly more acute kidney injury events (14 vs 4, respectively; P = .02) and cardiac arrhythmias (57 vs 30; P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing SAVR, cerebral embolic protection devices compared with a standard aortic cannula did not significantly reduce the risk of CNS infarction at 7 days. Potential benefits for reduction in delirium, cognition, and symptomatic stroke merit larger trials with longer follow-up.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389894.
| S-EPMC5808875 | biostudies-literature