Cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 2 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS

Indian heart journal Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ihj.2025.10.008

Ensieh Sadat Mansouri , Flavia Queiroga , Mohammadhasan Ghasemi , Lucas Mendes Barbosa , Juan Pinilla , Muhammad Aqib Faizan , Saman Faizollah Zadeh Ardebili , Nihar Jena , Wilton Gomes

{"title":"Cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Ensieh Sadat Mansouri , Flavia Queiroga , Mohammadhasan Ghasemi , Lucas Mendes Barbosa , Juan Pinilla , Muhammad Aqib Faizan , Saman Faizollah Zadeh Ardebili , Nihar Jena , Wilton Gomes","doi":"10.1016/j.ihj.2025.10.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) have been designed to prevent embolization to the cerebral circulation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the efficacy and safety of CEPD in stroke prevention in TAVR remains uncertain.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEPD vs. control for patients undergoing TAVR. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our meta-analysis included eight RCTs with 11,596 patients, of whom 5946 (51 %) were randomized to the CEPD group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of any stroke (3.51 % vs. 3.64 %; RR 0.91; 95 % CI 0.75–1.1; p = 0.33; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %) between groups. Similarly, CEPD did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause mortality (0.82 % vs. 0.67 %; RR 1.13; 95 % CI 0.74–1.74; p = 0.57; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %)</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Among patients undergoing TAVR, CEPD did not significantly reduce stroke incidence or all-cause mortality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13384,"journal":{"name":"Indian heart journal","volume":"78 2","pages":"Pages 72-78"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian heart journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019483225002068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) have been designed to prevent embolization to the cerebral circulation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the efficacy and safety of CEPD in stroke prevention in TAVR remains uncertain.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEPD vs. control for patients undergoing TAVR. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model.

Results

Our meta-analysis included eight RCTs with 11,596 patients, of whom 5946 (51 %) were randomized to the CEPD group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of any stroke (3.51 % vs. 3.64 %; RR 0.91; 95 % CI 0.75–1.1; p = 0.33; I² = 0 %) between groups. Similarly, CEPD did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause mortality (0.82 % vs. 0.67 %; RR 1.13; 95 % CI 0.74–1.74; p = 0.57; I² = 0 %)

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing TAVR, CEPD did not significantly reduce stroke incidence or all-cause mortality.

查看原文本刊更多论文

经导管主动脉瓣植入术中的脑栓塞保护装置：一项随机对照试验的最新meta分析。

背景：脑栓塞保护装置（CEPD）已被设计用于防止经导管主动脉瓣置换术（TAVR）中栓塞脑循环。然而，CEPD在TAVR患者脑卒中预防中的有效性和安全性仍不确定。方法：检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆中比较CEPD与对照组对TAVR患者的随机对照试验（rct）。95%置信区间（CI）的风险比（RR）与随机效应模型合并。结果：我们的荟萃分析包括8项随机对照试验，共11,596例患者，其中5,946例（51%）随机分配到CEPD组。两组间卒中发生率无显著差异（3.51% vs. 3.64%; RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.75-1.1; p=0.33; I2=0%）。同样，CEPD并没有显著降低全因死亡率（0.82% vs. 0.67%; RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.74-1.74; p=0.57; I2=0%）。结论：在接受TAVR的患者中，CEPD并没有显著降低卒中发生率或全因死亡率。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Indian heart journal CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-

CiteScore

2.60

自引率

6.70%

发文量

审稿时长

52 days

期刊介绍： Indian Heart Journal (IHJ) is the official peer-reviewed open access journal of Cardiological Society of India and accepts articles for publication from across the globe. The journal aims to promote high quality research and serve as a platform for dissemination of scientific information in cardiology with particular focus on South Asia. The journal aims to publish cutting edge research in the field of clinical as well as non-clinical cardiology - including cardiovascular medicine and surgery. Some of the topics covered are Heart Failure, Coronary Artery Disease, Hypertension, Interventional Cardiology, Cardiac Surgery, Valvular Heart Disease, Pulmonary Hypertension and Infective Endocarditis. IHJ open access invites original research articles, research briefs, perspective, case reports, case vignette, cardiovascular images, cardiovascular graphics, research letters, correspondence, reader forum, and interesting photographs, for publication. IHJ open access also publishes theme-based special issues and abstracts of papers presented at the annual conference of the Cardiological Society of India.