Effectiveness of cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Rattachement africain : it, be. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Cerebral embolism remains a concern during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices have been developed to mitigate this risk, but their clinical benefit remains unclear. Methods: -analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR with and without CEP devices. Primary endpoint was overall stroke; secondary endpoints included disabling stroke, all-cause mortality, life-treating bleeding, vascular complications related to CEP access and acute kidney injury. Results: Eight trials comprising 11,625 patients (group CEP, n = 5,843 patients; group NCEP, n = 5,782 patients, 57.3 % male, 81.5 mean age years) were included. No significant differences were found for primary endpoint, overall stroke (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.82-1.29), and secondary outcomes between CEP and non-CEP groups at 30 days follow-up. Complications related to CEP access were minimal, 1.1 % (95 % CI: -0.6 to 2.8). Conclusions: CEP devices do not significantly reduce short-term stroke or major complications after TAVR. However, given the prevalence of silent cerebral ischemia, further studies are needed to assess long-term neurological outcomes and identify high-risk subgroups who may benefit.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Effectiveness of cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Date Crossref
- 01/12/2025
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.