Cerebral Protection Devices during TAVR in the Daily Practice

The theory behind the use of cerebral protection devices during TAVR is good, but hard to test. The daily practice provides a far bigger number of patients, and therefore might be able to better show how to prevent one of the hardest events during TAVR. 

La protección cerebral en TAVI continúa con evidencia débil pero con esperanzas

This study resorted to Germany’s TAVR database between 2015 and 2017, with over 40,000 patients, and looked into patients who had received a cerebral protection device during procedure. 

Cerebral protection devices were used only in 3.8% of patients who were younger, compared against the rest, but had higher surgical risk.

Propensity score was used to compare patients receiving cerebral protection devices vs. patients not receiving any. 

After adjusting, it was observed that the use of a cerebral protection device will not reduce the risk of stroke (p=0.069) or delirium after procedure (p=0.106). Delirium is interpreted as a sign of acute cerebral compromise. 


Read also: Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis May Be Linked to AstraZeneca Vaccine, Analysis Reports.


What is curious is that even though researchers were no able to prevent stroke, they did see a drop in inhospital mortality with the use of protection devices (p=0.034). This reduction in mortality is difficult to explain from the physiopathological point of view and calls for further research. 

Conclusion

In this huge database, we observe that the use of cerebral protection devices during TAVR is fairly infrequent in the daily practice. Cerebral protection devices did not reduce the risk of stroke or delirium. 

j-jcin-2020-09-047free

Original Title: The Use and Outcomes of Cerebral Protection Devices for Patients Undergoing Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Clinical Practice.

Reference: Peter Stachon et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2021;14:161–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.047.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

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)....