Embolic Protection Devices Reduce the Risk of New Lesions During TAVR

Embolic Protection DevicesThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of cerebral protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

 

All randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of cerebral protection devices during TAVR are relatively small and lack statistical power for definitive conclusions.

 

That is the reason why this systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out. All trials using any type of cerebral protection device during TAVR were analyzed and included.

 

Primary imaging efficacy endpoints were total lesion volume and number of new ischemic lesions per magnetic resonance imaging scan. The primary clinical efficacy endpoint was any deterioration in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at hospital discharge.

 

Four randomized trials with 252 total patients were included; in them, the use of cerebral protection devices reduced the total volume of new cerebral lesions (p = 0.002) as well as the number of new lesions (p = 0.03).

 

Cerebral protection device use was associated with a trend toward lower risk for deterioration in the NIHSS score at discharge (risk ratio [RR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27 to 1.09; p = 0.09).

 

The risk for stroke and all-cause mortality was lower in the cerebral protection group, although the difference was not significant.

 

Conclusion

The use of cerebral protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with less amount and lower volume of new cerebral lesions.

 

Original title: Neurological Outcomes with Embolic Protection Devices in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Reference: Gennaro Giustino et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2016;9(20):2124-2133.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Transradial Aortic Valvuloplasty: Is Minimalism Worth It?

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has historically been used either as a bridge strategy, an assessment tool, or even palliative treatment in severe aortic stenosis...

Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Cohort Study with Continuous Implantable Cardiac Monitoring

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a recognized complication following percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO), with reported incidences of up to 30% during...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Coronary Perforations and Use of Covered Stents: Safe and Effective Long-Term Strategy?

Coronary perforations remain one of the most serious complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in cases of Ellis ruptures type III. In these...

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....