Meta-Analysis of Usefulness of Cerebral Embolic Protection During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology 2021-05, Vol.146, p.69-73
• Main Authors: Ahmad, Yousif, Howard, James P.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aorta; Aortic valve; Aortic Valve - surgery; Aortic Valve Stenosis - surgery; Bias; Clinical outcomes; Clinical trials; Complications; Confidence intervals; Embolic Protection Devices; Health risks; Heart valves; Heterogeneity; Humans; Implantation; Intracranial Embolism - etiology; Intracranial Embolism - prevention & control; Ischemia; Kidneys; Lesions; Magnetic resonance imaging; Medical imaging; Meta-analysis; Neuroimaging; Parameters; Risk; Risk Factors; Sensitivity analysis; Statistical analysis; Stroke; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement - adverse effects; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.01.023

One of the most feared complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is stroke, with increased mortality and disability observed in patients suffering a stroke after TAVI. There has been no significant decline in stroke rates seen over the last 5 years; attention has therefore been given to strategies for cerebral embolic protection. With the emergence of new randomized trial data, we sought to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of cerebral embolic protection during TAVI both on clinical outcomes and on neuroimaging parameters. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of cerebral embolic protection during TAVI. The primary end point was the risk of stroke. The risk of stroke was not significantly different with the use of cerebral embolic protection: relative risk (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.36, p = 0.566. Nor was there a significant reduction in the risk of disabling stroke, non-disabling stroke or death. There was no significant difference in total lesion volume on MRI with cerebral embolic protection: mean difference -74.94, 95% CI -174.31 to 24.4, p = 0.139. There was also not a significant difference in the number of new ischemic lesions on MRI: mean difference -2.15, 95% -5.25 to 0.96, p = 0.176, although there was significant heterogeneity for the neuroimaging outcomes. In conclusion, cerebral embolic protection during TAVI is safe but there is no evidence of a statistically significant benefit on clinical outcomes or neuroimaging parameters.