Cerebral embolic protection for stroke prevention during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

REFERENCES

• Mastoris I, Schoos MM, Dangas GD, et al. Stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: incidence, risk factors, prognosis, and preventive strategies. Clin Cardiol. 2014;37(12):756–764. doi: 10.1002/clc.22328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciobanu A-O, Gherasim L, Vinereanu D. Risk of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: epidemiology, mechanism, and management. Am J Ther. 2021;28(5):e560–e572. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cubero-Gallego H, Pascual I, Rozado J, et al. Cerebral protection devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(20):584. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.09.25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfrum M, Handerer IJ, Moccetti F, et al. Cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matched and randomized controlled trials using the sentinel cerebral embolic protection device. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023;23(1):306. doi: 10.1186/s12872-023-03338-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmad Y, Howard JP. Meta-analysis of usefulness of cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2021;146:69–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazir S, Zafrullah F, Virk HUH, et al. Meta-analysis of cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am J Cardiol. 2021;139:138–139. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butala NM, Makkar R, Secemsky EA, et al. Cerebral embolic protection and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the transcatheter valve therapy registry. Circulation. 2021;143(23):2229–2240. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.052874
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samim M, Agostoni P, Hendrikse J, et al. Embrella embolic deflection device for cerebral protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(3):799–805.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.05.097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodés-Cabau J, Kahlert P, Neumann F-J, et al. Feasibility and exploratory efficacy evaluation of the embrella embolic deflector system for the prevention of cerebral emboli in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(10):1146–1155. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.04.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansky AJ, Makkar R, Nazif T, et al. A randomized evaluation of the TriGuardTM HDH cerebral embolic protection device to Reduce the Impact of Cerebral Embolic LEsions after TransCatheter Aortic Valve ImplanTation: the REFLECT I trial.
   Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.10.1136/bmj.n71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
   Google Scholar
• Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.10.1136/bmj.l4898
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(1):55–61. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.10.1136/bmj.i4919
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–1101. doi: 10.2307/2533446
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt D, Kleinbongard P, Knipp S, et al. Intraaortic protection from embolization in patients undergoing transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(2):686–691. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.03.119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alkhouli M, Alqahtani F, Harris AH, et al. Early experience with cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(5):783–784. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansky AJ, Schofer J, Tchetche D, et al. A prospective randomized evaluation of the TriGuardTM HDH embolic DEFLECTion device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from the DEFLECT III trial.
   Google Scholar
• Van Mieghem NM, Van Gils L, Ahmad H, et al. Filter-based cerebral embolic protection with transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomised MISTRAL-C trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(4):499–507. doi: 10.4244/EIJV12I4A84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haussig S, Mangner N, Dwyer MG, et al. Effect of a cerebral protection device on brain lesions following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis: the CLEAN-TAVI randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(6):592. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.10302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapadia SR, Kodali S, Makkar R, et al. Protection against cerebral embolism during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(4):367–377. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapadia SR, Makkar R, Leon M, et al. Cerebral embolic protection during Transcatheter Aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(14):1253–1263. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204961
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazif TM, Moses J, Sharma R, et al. Randomized evaluation of TriGuard 3 cerebral embolic protection after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(5):515–527. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seeger J, Gonska B, Otto M, et al. Cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement significantly reduces death and stroke compared with unprotected procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(22):2297–2303. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.06.037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroon HG, Van Der Werf HW, Hoeks SE, et al. Early clinical impact of cerebral embolic protection in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a two-center registry in the Netherlands. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(6):e007605. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megaly M, Sorajja P, Cavalcante JL, et al. Ischemic stroke with cerebral protection system during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(18):2149–2155. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stachon P, Kaier K, Heidt T, et al. The use and outcomes of cerebral protection devices for patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in clinical practice. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(2):161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isogai T, Vanguru HR, Krishnaswamy A, et al. Cerebral embolic protection and severity of stroke following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;100(5):810–820. doi: 10.1002/ccd.30340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind A, Jánosi RA, Totzeck M, et al. Embolic Protection with the TriGuard 3 System in Nonagenarian Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis. J Clin Med. 2022;11:2003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Kemp MJ, Floré V, Lau CW, et al. Impact of routine use of a cerebral protection device on the TAVR procedure and its short-term outcomes: a single-centre experience. Acta Cardiol. 2022;77(10):922–929. doi: 10.1080/00015385.2022.2111128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir OM, Iannopollo G, Mangieri A, et al. The Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2018;5:150. 10.3389/fcvm.2018.00150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aladin AI, Case BC, Wermers JP, et al. Overview of FDA Circulatory System Devices Panel virtual meeting on TriGUARD 3 cerebral embolic protection. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Off J Soc Card Angiogr Interv. 2022;99:1789–1795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fezzi S, Jagielak D, Targoński R, et al. Final report of the PROTEMBO C Trial: a prospective evaluation of a novel cerebral protection device during TAVI. EuroIntervention. 2024;20(4):e264–e267. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00743
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jagielak D, Targonski R, Frerker C, et al.. Safety and performance of a novel cerebral embolic protection device for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the PROTEMBO C Trial. EuroIntervention J Eur Collab Work Group Interv Cardiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2022;18(7):590–597. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00238
   Google Scholar
• Latib A, Mangieri A, Vezzulli P, et al. First-in-man study evaluating the emblok embolic protection system during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(7):860–868. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.11.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasior T, Mangner N, Bijoch J, et al. Cerebral embolic protection systems for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Intervent Cardiol. 2018;31:891–898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubman D, Ahmad Y, Leipsic JA, et al. Predictors of Cerebral Embolic Debris During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The SafePass 2 First-in-Human Study. Am J Cardiol. 2023;207:28–34. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.08.137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swift SL, Puehler T, Misso K, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(12):e054222. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huded CP, Tuzcu EM, Krishnaswamy A, et al. Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and early postprocedural stroke. JAMA. 2019;321(23):2306–2315. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.7525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Mieghem NM, Schipper MEI, Ladich E, et al. Histopathology of embolic debris captured during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2013;127(22):2194–2201. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.001091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez-Camargo D, Travieso A, Carnero-Alcázar M, et al. Neurological outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without cerebral embolic protection devices: a meta-analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2022;31(9):106605. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2022.106605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan SU, Zahid S, Alkhouli MA, et al. An Updated Meta-Analysis on Cerebral Embolic Protection in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Intervention Stratified by Baseline Surgical Risk and Device Type. Struct Heart. 2023;7:100178.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jimenez Diaz VA, Kapadia SR, Linke A, et al.. Cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter heart interventions. EuroIntervention J Eur Collab Work Group Interv Cardiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2023;19(7):549–570. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00166
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer U. Safety and Efficacy of Protected Cardiac Intervention: Clinical Evidence for Sentinel Cerebral Embolic Protection. Interv Cardiol Lond Engl. 2017;12:128–132.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar