Indian heart journal · 2025
Cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mansouri Ensieh Sadat, Queiroga Flavia, Ghasemi Mohammadhasan, Barbosa Lucas Mendes, Pinilla Juan, Faizan Muhammad Aqib, Ardebili Saman Faizollah Zadeh, Jena Nihar, Gomes Wilton
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) have been designed to prevent embolization to the cerebral circulation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the efficacy and safety of CEPD in stroke prevention in TAVR remains uncertain.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEPD vs. control for patients undergoing TAVR. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included eight RCTs with 11,596 patients, of whom 5946 (51 %) were randomized to the CEPD group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of any stroke (3.51 % vs. 3.64 %; RR 0.91; 95 % CI 0.75-1.1; p = 0.33; I2 = 0 %) between groups. Similarly, CEPD did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause mortality (0.82 % vs. 0.67 %; RR 1.13; 95 % CI 0.74-1.74; p = 0.57; I2 = 0 %) CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing TAVR, CEPD did not significantly reduce stroke incidence or all-cause mortality.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEPD vs. control for patients undergoing TAVR. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included eight RCTs with 11,596 patients, of whom 5946 (51 %) were randomized to the CEPD group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of any stroke (3.51 % vs. 3.64 %; RR 0.91; 95 % CI 0.75-1.1; p = 0.33; I2 = 0 %) between groups. Similarly, CEPD did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause mortality (0.82 % vs. 0.67 %; RR 1.13; 95 % CI 0.74-1.74; p = 0.57; I2 = 0 %) CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing TAVR, CEPD did not significantly reduce stroke incidence or all-cause mortality.