Safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection devices in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of in-hospital outcomes

Clinical impact of cerebral protection during transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Embolization of debris can complicate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) causing stroke. Cerebral embolism protection (CEP) devices can divert or trap debris.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of CEP during TAVI vs the standard procedure.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, SCOPUS and DOAJ 1/01/2014-04/12/2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized and observational studies comparing CEP versus standard TAVI, according to PRISMA.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

stroke.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

death, bleeding, vascular access complications, acute kidney injury and infarct area.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators independently assessed study quality and extracted data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-six articles were included (540.247 patients). The primary endpoint was significantly lower (RR = 0.800 95%CI:0.682-0.940; p = 0.007) with CEP. Similarly, death rates were significantly lower with CEP (RR = 0.610 95%CI:0.482-0.771; p < 0.001). No difference was found for bleeding (RR = 1.053 95%CI:0.793-1.398; p = 0.721), vascular complications (RR = 0.937 95%CI:0.820-1.070; p = 0.334) or AKI (RR = 0.982 95%CI:0.754-1.279; p = 0.891).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of CEP during TAVI is associated with improved outcomes. Future studies will identify patients who benefit most from CEP.

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

BACKGROUND

The Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device (CEP) aims to reduce the risk of stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matched (PSM) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effect of the Sentinel CEP to prevent strokes during TAVR.

METHODS

Eligible trials were searched through PubMed, ISI Web of science databases, Cochrane database, and proceedings of major congresses. Primary outcome was stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major or life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications and acute kidney injury at discharge. Fixed and random effect models were used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and absolute risk difference (ARD).

RESULTS

A total of 4066 patients from 4 RCTs (3'506 patients) and 1 PSM study (560 patients) were included. Use of Sentinel CEP was successful in 92% of patients and was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95, p = 0.02. ARD: -1.3%, 95% CI: -2.3 - -0.2, p = 0.02, number needed to treat (NNT) = 77), and a reduced risk of disabling stroke (RR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.17-0.65. ARD: -0.9%, 95% CI: -1.5 - -0.3, p = 0.004, NNT = 111). Use of Sentinel CEP was associated with a lower risk of major or life-threatening bleeding (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.87, p = 0.02). Risk for nondisabling stroke (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.62-1.40, p = 0.73), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.35-1.40, p = 0.31), major vascular complications (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.33-1.67, p = 0.47) and acute kidney injury (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50, p = 0.40) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CEP during TAVR was associated with lower risks of any stroke and disabling stroke with an NNT of 77 and 111, respectively.

Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices: Current State of the Art

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a first-line treatment for severe aortic stenosis with intermediate to high-risk population with its use increasingly expanding into younger and low-risk cohorts as well. Cerebrovascular events are one of the most serious consequential complications of TAVR, which increase morbidity and mortality. The most probable origin of such neurological events is embolic in nature and the majority occur in the acute phase after TAVR when embolic events are most frequent. Cerebral embolic protection devices have been designed to capture or deflect these emboli, reducing the risk of peri-procedural ischaemic events. They also carry the potential to diminish the burden of new silent ischemic lesions during TAVR. Our review explores different types of these device systems, their rationale, and the established clinical data.

Utility of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices in Transcatheter Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the emergence of the largest randomized control trial to date - the Stroke Protection With Sentinel During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (PROTECTED TAVR) study- we sought to conduct an updated meta-analyses to evaluate the utility of CEP devices on both clinical outcomes and neuroimaging parameters.

METHODS

Electronic databases were queried through November 2022 for clinical trials comparing the utility of Cerebral Embolic Protection (CEP) devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) with non-CEP TAVR procedures. Meta-analyses were performed using the generic inverse variance technique, and a random-effects model, and results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HR) for dichotomous outcomes. Outcomes of interest included stroke, disabling stroke, non-disabling stroke, bleeding, mortality, vascular complications, new ischemic lesions, acute kidney injury (AKI) and total lesion volume.

RESULTS

13 studies (8 RCTs, 5 observational studies) consisting of 128,471 patients were included in the analysis. Results from our meta-analyses showed a significant reduction in stroke (OR: 0.84 [0.74 - 0.95]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%), disabling stroke (OR: 0.37 [0.21 - 0.67]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) and bleeding events (OR: 0.91 [0.83 - 0.99]; P = 0.04; I² = 0%) through CEP device use in TAVR. The use of CEP devices had no significant impact on non-disabling stroke (OR: 0.94 [0.65 - 1.37]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%), mortality (OR: 0.78 [0.53 - 1.14]; P < 0.01; I² = 17%), vascular complications (OR: 0.99 [0.63 - 1.57]; P < 0.01; I² = 28%), AKI (OR: 0.78 [0.46 - 1.32]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%), new ischemic lesions (MD: -1.72 [-4.01, 0.57]; p < 0.001; I² = 95%) and total lesion volume (MD: -46.11 [-97.38, 5.16]; p < 0.001; I² = 81%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that CEP device use was associated with a lower risk of disabling stroke and bleeding events in patients undergoing TAVR.

Iatrogenic Strokes and Covert Brain Infarcts After Percutaneous Cardiac Procedures: An Update

Millions of cardiac procedures are performed worldwide each year, making the potential complication of periprocedural iatrogenic stroke an important concern. These strokes can occur intraoperatively or within 30 days of a procedure and can be categorised as either overt or covert, occurring without obvious acute neurologic symptoms. Understanding the prevalence, risk factors, and strategies for preventing overt and covert strokes associated with cardiac procedures is imperative for reducing periprocedural morbidity and mortality. In this narrative review, we focus on the impacts of perioperative ischemic strokes for several of the most common interventional cardiac procedures, their relevance from a neurologic standpoint, and future directions for the care and research on perioperative strokes. Depending on the percutaneous procedure, the rates of periprocedural overt strokes can range from as little as 0.01% to as high as 2.9%. Meanwhile, covert brain infarctions (CBIs) occur much more frequently, with rates for different procedures ranging from 10%-84%. Risk factors include previous stroke, atherosclerotic disease, carotid stenosis, female sex, and African race, as well as other patient- and procedure-level factors. While the impact of covert brain infarctions is still a developing field, overt strokes for cardiac procedures lead to longer stays in hospital and increased costs. Potential preventative measures include screening and vascular risk factor control, premedicating, and procedural considerations such as the use of cerebral embolic protection devices. In addition, emerging treatments from the neurologic field, including neuroprotective drugs and remote ischemic conditioning, present promising avenues for preventing these strokes and merit investigation in cardiac procedures.

Antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic stenosis is a major valvular disease, which affects prognosis, and its prevalence is increasing due to an aging population. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a well-established therapy for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis across the entire risk spectrum, and the number of patients who undergo TAVR is increasing worldwide. Generally, ischemic and bleeding events after TAVR are not rare and can be devastating. Thus, antithrombotic therapy is recommended to prevent thromboembolic events after TAVR. Recently, a lot of randomized control trials have been published on antithrombotic therapy following TAVR, and the situation regarding the optimal antithrombotic regiment following TAVR is dramatically changing. This report reviews the current status and remaining issues in the field of optimal antithrombotic therapy following TAVR and leaflet thrombosis.

Antithrombotic Therapy Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Due to a large technical improvement in the past decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded to lower-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic and severe aortic stenosis. While mortality rates related to TAVR are decreasing, the prognosis of patients is still impacted by ischemic and bleeding complications, and defining the optimal antithrombotic regimen remains a priority. Recent randomized control trials reported lower bleeding rates with an equivalent risk in ischemic outcomes with single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) when compared to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients without an underlying indication for anticoagulation. In patients requiring lifelong oral anticoagulation (OAC), the association of OAC plus antiplatelet therapy leads to a higher risk of bleeding events with no advantages on mortality or ischemic outcomes. Considering these data, guidelines have recently been updated and now recommend SAPT and OAC alone for TAVR patients without and with a long-term indication for anticoagulation. Whether a direct oral anticoagulant or vitamin K antagonist provides better outcomes in patients in need of anticoagulation remains uncertain, as recent trials showed a similar impact on ischemic and bleeding outcomes with apixaban but higher gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. This review aims to summarize the most recently published data in the field, as well as describe unresolved issues.

Embolic Protection with the TriGuard 3 System in Nonagenarian Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improves the survival and life quality of nonagenarian patients with aortic stenosis. Stroke remains one of the most worrisome complications following TAVR. Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPDs) may reduce neurological complications after TAVR. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of CEPDs during TAVR in nonagenarian patients. Methods: Between January 2018 and October 2021, 869 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR (TF-TAVR) at our center. Of these, 51 (5.9%) patients were older than ninety years. In 33 consecutive nonagenarian patients, TF-TAVR was implanted without CEPDs using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expandable valves (SEVs). Eighteen consecutive nonagenarians underwent TF-TAVR using a CEPD (CP group). Follow up period was in-hospital or 30 days after the procedure, respectively. Results: Minor access site complications occurred in two patients (3.9%) and were not CEPD-associated. Postinterventional delirium occurred in nine patients (17.6%). Periprocedural minor non-disabling stroke and delirium occurred in ten patients (19.6%). Periprocedural major fatal stroke occurred in two patients in the BEV group (3.9%). Two patients in the BEV group died due to postinterventional pneumonia with sepsis. The mortality rate was 7.8%. The results did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: Age alone is no longer a contraindication for TAVR. CEPD using the Triguard 3 system in nonagenarian TAVR patients was feasible and safe and did not increase access site complications.