The efficacy and safety of cerebral embolic protection devices in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.5 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Ahmed Elazab, Ahmed W Hageen, Ahmed Elbataa, Ahmed Mansour, Eman E Labeeb, Qasi Najah, Mohammed A Elbahloul, Mohamed Ismail Elnady, Sohaila Mansour Abdelsatar, Anas Mansour, Mohamed Hamouda Elkasaby, Ramez M Odat, Laith Rhabneh, Mahmoud Nassar, Mustafa Turkmani, Diaa Hakim
{"title":"The efficacy and safety of cerebral embolic protection devices in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Ahmed Elazab, Ahmed W Hageen, Ahmed Elbataa, Ahmed Mansour, Eman E Labeeb, Qasi Najah, Mohammed A Elbahloul, Mohamed Ismail Elnady, Sohaila Mansour Abdelsatar, Anas Mansour, Mohamed Hamouda Elkasaby, Ramez M Odat, Laith Rhabneh, Mahmoud Nassar, Mustafa Turkmani, Diaa Hakim","doi":"10.1080/14779072.2026.2636590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment for severe aortic stenosis but carries a risk of stroke and cerebral embolism. Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD), including filter-based and deflection-based systems (Sentinel and TriGUARD), aim to reduce embolic complications; however, their clinical benefit remains uncertain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of CEPD during TAVR using trial sequential analysis (TSA) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVR with and without CEPD were identified through four electronic databases from inception to April 2025. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), stroke, and disabling stroke. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. TSA was conducted with a 5% type I error and 80% power.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine RCTs including 11,876 patients were analyzed. CEPD use showed no significant reduction in mortality, MACCE, stroke, or disabling stroke. Secondary and subgroup analyses yielded consistent findings. TSA demonstrated that the accrued evidence was insufficient to confirm a clinical benefit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence does not support the routine use of CEPD during TAVR, given the lack of significant benefit in key clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The protocol of this study was registered at Prospero CRD420251036308.</p>","PeriodicalId":12098,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"253-271"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14779072.2026.2636590","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment for severe aortic stenosis but carries a risk of stroke and cerebral embolism. Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD), including filter-based and deflection-based systems (Sentinel and TriGUARD), aim to reduce embolic complications; however, their clinical benefit remains uncertain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of CEPD during TAVR using trial sequential analysis (TSA) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVR with and without CEPD were identified through four electronic databases from inception to April 2025. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), stroke, and disabling stroke. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. TSA was conducted with a 5% type I error and 80% power.

Results: Nine RCTs including 11,876 patients were analyzed. CEPD use showed no significant reduction in mortality, MACCE, stroke, or disabling stroke. Secondary and subgroup analyses yielded consistent findings. TSA demonstrated that the accrued evidence was insufficient to confirm a clinical benefit.

Conclusions: Current evidence does not support the routine use of CEPD during TAVR, given the lack of significant benefit in key clinical outcomes.

Registration: The protocol of this study was registered at Prospero CRD420251036308.

经导管主动脉瓣置换术患者使用脑栓塞保护装置的有效性和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)是一种治疗严重主动脉瓣狭窄的成熟方法,但有卒中和脑栓塞的风险。脑栓塞保护装置(CEPD),包括基于过滤器和基于偏转的系统(Sentinel和TriGUARD),旨在减少栓塞并发症;然而,它们的临床益处仍不确定。本研究采用试验序贯分析(TSA)和推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)框架评估CEPD在TAVR期间的疗效和安全性。方法:从成立到2025年4月,通过4个电子数据库对TAVR与CEPD的随机对照试验(rct)进行比较。主要结局是全因死亡率、主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)、卒中和致残性卒中。计算合并风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)。TSA以5%的I型误差和80%的功率进行。结果:共分析9项随机对照试验,共11876例患者。使用CEPD没有显著降低死亡率、MACCE、卒中或致残性卒中。二级和亚组分析得出了一致的结果。运输安全管理局证明,累积的证据不足以证实临床获益。结论:目前的证据不支持在TAVR期间常规使用CEPD,因为在关键的临床结果中缺乏显著的益处。注册:本研究方案注册号为Prospero CRD420251036308。
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
Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy
Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy (ISSN 1477-9072) provides expert reviews on the clinical applications of new medicines, therapeutic agents and diagnostics in cardiovascular disease. Coverage includes drug therapy, heart disease, vascular disorders, hypertension, cholesterol in cardiovascular disease, heart disease, stroke, heart failure and cardiovascular surgery. The Expert Review format is unique. Each review provides a complete overview of current thinking in a key area of research or clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书