A randomized evaluation of the TriGuard™ HDH cerebral embolic protection device to Reduce the Impact of Cerebral Embolic LEsions after TransCatheter Aortic Valve ImplanTation: the REFLECT I trial

Clinical Significance of Diffusion-Weighted Brain MRI Lesions After TAVR: Results of a Patient-Level Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute brain infarction detected by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) is common after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but its clinical relevance is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated the relationship between DW-MRI total lesion number (TLN), individual lesion volume (ILV), and total lesion volume (TLV) and clinical stroke outcomes after TAVR.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from 4 prospective TAVR embolic protection studies, with consistent predischarge DW-MRI acquisition and core laboratory analysis. C-statistic was used to determine the best DW-MRI measure associated with clinical stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 495 of 603 patients undergoing TAVR completed the predischarge DW-MRI. At 30 days, the rate of clinical ischemic stroke was 6.9%. Acute ischemic brain injury was seen in 85% of patients with 5.5 ± 7.3 discrete lesions per patient, mean ILV of 78.2 ± 257.1 mm3, and mean TLV of 555 ± 1,039 mm3. The C-statistic was 0.84 for TLV, 0.81 for number of lesions, and 0.82 for maximum ILV in predicting ischemic stroke. On the basis of the TLV cutpoint as defined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC), patients with a TLV >500 mm3 (vs TLV ≤500 mm3) had more ischemic stroke (18.2% vs 2.3%; P < 0.0001), more disabling strokes (8.8% vs 0.9%; P < 0.0001), and less complete stroke recovery (44% vs 62.5%; P = 0.001) at 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that the number, size, and total volume of acute brain infarction defined by DW-MRI are each associated with clinical ischemic strokes, disabling strokes, and worse stroke recovery in patients undergoing TAVR and may have value as surrogate outcomes in stroke prevention trials. (A Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of the TriGuard™ HDH Embolic Deflection Device During TAVI [DEFLECT III]; NCT02070731) (A Study to Evaluate the Neuro-embolic Consequences of TAVR [NeuroTAVR]; NCT02073864) (The REFLECT Trial: Cerebral Protection to Reduce Cerebral Embolic Lesions After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [REFLECT I]; NCT02536196) (The REFLECT Trial: Cerebral Protection to Reduce Cerebral Embolic Lesions After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [REFLECT II]; NCT02536196).

Stroke reduction by cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The use of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been studied in several randomised trials. We aimed to perform a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised CEP trials, focusing on a clinically relevant reduction in disabling stroke.

METHODS

A systematic search was applied to three electronic databases, including trials that randomised TAVI patients to CEP versus standard treatment. The primary outcome was the risk of disabling stroke. Outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR), absolute risk differences (ARDs), numbers needed to treat (NNTs) and the 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The minimal clinically important difference was determined at 1.1% ARD, per expert consensus (NNT 91). The principal Bayesian meta-analysis was performed under a vague prior, and secondary analyses were performed under two informed literature-based priors.

RESULTS

Seven randomised studies were included for meta-analysis (n=3996: CEP n=2126, control n=1870). Under a vague prior, the estimated median RR of CEP use for disabling stroke was 0.56 (95% CrI 0.28 to 1.19, derived ARD 0.56% and NNT 179, I2=0%). Although the estimated posterior probability of any benefit was 94.4%, the probability of a clinically relevant effect was 0-0.1% under the vague and informed literature-based priors. Results were robust across multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

There is a high probability of a beneficial CEP treatment effect, but this is unlikely to be clinically relevant. These findings suggest that future trials should focus on identifying TAVI patients with an increased baseline risk of stroke, and on the development of new generation devices.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023407006.

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.

The efficacy of different types of cerebral embolic protection device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis

Aims

Perioperative stroke remains a devastating complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), and using a cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) during TAVI may reduce the occurrence of stroke according to some studies. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to determine whether CEPD should be routinely used during TAVI.

Methods and results

The inclusion criteria for this study were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the outcome of stroke with or without CEPD during TAVI, with a minimum follow-up period of 30 days. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of stroke (including both cerebrovascular accidents and death due to cerebrovascular accidents). The risk of stroke was lower in the CEPD group: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.96, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%. A subgroup analysis was conducted according to the type of CEPD. The risk of stroke was lower in the I&LCCA (filter cover the innominate and the left common carotid arteries) type CEPD group: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.96, p = 0.03, I2 = 36%. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of stroke in the TMCA [filter cover the three major cerebral arteries (innominate, left common carotid, and subclavian arteries)] type CEPD group: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.36-1.80, p = 0.60, I2 = 0%.

Conclusions

In this meta-analysis, the I&LCCA-type CEPD can reduce the risk of stroke within 30 days following TAVI, but the TMCA type cannot.

Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) capture embolic material in an attempt to reduce ischemic brain injury during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Prior reports have indicated mixed results regarding the benefits of these devices. With new data emerging, we performed an updated meta-analysis examining the effect of CEPD during transcatheter aortic valve replacement on various clinical, neurological, and safety parameters.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A comprehensive review of electronic databases was performed comparing CEPD and no-CEPD in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Primary clinical outcome was all-cause stroke. Secondary clinical outcomes were disabling stroke and all-cause mortality. Neurological outcomes included worsening of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, Montreal Cognitive Assessment score from baseline at discharge, presence of new ischemic lesions, and total lesion volume on neuroimaging. Safety outcomes included major or minor vascular complications and stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury. Seven randomized controlled trials with 4016 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary clinical outcome of all-cause stroke; secondary clinical outcomes of disabling stroke, all-cause mortality, neurological outcomes of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score worsening, Montreal Cognitive Assessment worsening, presence of new ischemic lesions, or total lesion volume on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging between CEPD versus control groups. There was no statistically significant difference in major or minor vascular complications or stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CEPD in transcatheter aortic valve replacement was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of clinical, neurological, and safety outcomes.

TriGuard Embolic Protection Device in percutaneous cardiac interventions with intracavitary cardiac thrombosis: A case series

Embolic cerebral protection devices are not routinely used in clinical practice during electrophysiological interventions. We report a case series of patients with intracardiac thrombosis undergoing a percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure and a ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation supported by TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection Device.

First-in-human study of the CAPTIS embolic protection system during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Stroke and other clinically significant embolic complications are well documented in the early period following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The CAPTIS device is an embolic protection system, designed to provide neurovascular and systemic protection by deflecting debris away from the brain's circulation, capturing the debris and thus avoiding systemic embolisation.

AIMS

We aimed to study the safety and feasibility study of the CAPTIS complete cerebral and full-body embolic protection system during TAVR.

METHODS

A first-in-human study investigated the safety, feasibility and debris capturing ability of CAPTIS during TAVR. Patients were followed for 30 days. The primary endpoints were device safety and cerebrovascular events at 72 hours.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent TAVR using balloon-expandable or self-expanding valve systems. CAPTIS was successfully delivered, positioned, deployed, and retrieved in all cases, and TAVR was successfully completed without device-related complications. No cerebrovascular events were observed. High numbers of debris particles were captured in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the CAPTIS full-body embolic protection system during TAVR was safe, and it captured a substantial number of debris particles. No patient suffered from a cerebrovascular event. A randomised clinical trial is warranted to prove its efficacy.

Generalized Pairwise Comparisons to Assess Treatment Effects: JACC Review Topic of the Week

A time-to-first-event composite endpoint analysis has well-known shortcomings in evaluating a treatment effect in cardiovascular clinical trials. It does not fully describe the clinical benefit of therapy because the severity of the events, events repeated over time, and clinically relevant nonsurvival outcomes cannot be considered. The generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) method adds flexibility in defining the primary endpoint by including any number and type of outcomes that best capture the clinical benefit of a therapy as compared with standard of care. Clinically important outcomes, including bleeding severity, number of interventions, and quality of life, can easily be integrated in a single analysis. The treatment effect in GPC can be expressed by the net treatment benefit, the success odds, or the win ratio. This review provides guidance on the use of GPC and the choice of treatment effect measures for the analysis and reporting of cardiovascular trials.

Cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter heart interventions

Stroke remains a devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with the incidence of clinically apparent stroke seemingly fixed at around 3% despite TAVR's significant evolution during the past decade. Embolic showers of debris (calcium, atheroma, valve material, foreign material) are captured in the majority of patients who have TAVR using a filter-based cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD). Additionally, in systematic brain imaging studies, the majority of patients receiving TAVR exhibit new cerebral lesions. Mechanistic studies have shown reductions in the volume of new cerebral lesions using CEPDs, yet the first randomised trial powered for periprocedural stroke within 72 hours of a transfemoral TAVR failed to meet its primary endpoint of showing superiority of the SENTINEL CEPD. The present review summarises the clinicopathological rationale for the development of CEPDs, the evidence behind these devices to date and the emerging recognition of cerebral embolisation in many non-TAVR transcatheter procedures. Given the uniqueness of each of the various CEPDs under development, specific trials tailored to their designs will need to be undertaken to broaden the CEPD field, in addition to evaluating the role of CEPD in non-TAVR transcatheter heart interventions. Importantly, the cost-effectiveness of these devices will require assessment to broaden the adoption of CEPDs globally.

Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Stroke is a feared complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which embolic protection devices (EPDs) may mitigate. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of EPDs in TAVR.

Methods

All RCTs comparing EPDs with control during TAVR were systematically identified. Prespecified primary end points were all stroke, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and all-cause mortality. Safety and neuroimaging parameters were assessed. Sensitivity analyses were stratified by EPD type. Study registration was a priori (CRD42022377939).

Results

Eight trials randomizing 4043 patients were included. There was no significant difference between EPDs and control for all stroke (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.65-1.18; P = .39; I2 = 0%), disabling stroke (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.31-1.46; P = .32; I2 = 8.6%), nondisabling stroke (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.40; P = .97; I2 = 0%), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.43-1.78; P = .71; I2 = 2.3%). There were no differences in safety end points of bleeding, vascular complications, or acute kidney injury. EPDs did not result in differences in total lesion volume or the number of new lesions. The Sentinel EPD significantly reduced the risk of disabling stroke (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.88; P = .022; I2 = 0%) but did not affect all stroke, nondisabling stroke, or all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

The totality of randomized data for EPDs during TAVR demonstrated no safety concerns or significant differences in clinical or neuroimaging end points. Analyses restricted to the Sentinel EPD demonstrated large, clinically meaningful reductions in disabling stroke. Ongoing RCTs may help validate these results.

Composite endpoints, including patient reported outcomes, in rare diseases

BACKGROUND

When assessing the efficacy of a treatment in any clinical trial, it is recommended by the International Conference on Harmonisation to select a single meaningful endpoint. However, a single endpoint is often not sufficient to reflect the full clinical benefit of a treatment in multifaceted diseases, which is often the case in rare diseases. Therefore, the use of a combination of several clinically meaningful outcomes is preferred. Many methodologies that allow for combining outcomes in a so-called composite endpoint are however limited in a number of ways, not in the least in the number and type of outcomes that can be combined and in the poor small-sample properties. Moreover, patient reported outcomes, such as quality of life, often cannot be integrated in a composite analysis, in spite of their intrinsic value.

RESULTS

Recently, a class of non-parametric generalized pairwise comparisons tests have been proposed, which members do allow for any number and type of outcomes, including patient reported outcomes. The class enjoys good small-sample properties. Moreover, this very flexible class of methods allows for prioritizing the outcomes by clinical severity, allows for matched designs and for adding a threshold of clinical relevance. Our aim is to introduce the generalized pairwise comparison ideas and concepts for rare disease clinical trial analysis, and demonstrate their benefit in a post-hoc analysis of a small-sample trial in epidermolysis bullosa. More precisely, we will include a patient relevant outcome (Quality of life), in a composite endpoint. This publication is part of the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) series on innovative methodologies for rare diseases clinical trials, which is based on the webinars presented within the educational activity of EJP RD. This publication covers the webinar topic on composite endpoints in rare diseases and includes participants' response to a questionnaire on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Generalized pairwise comparisons is a promising statistical methodology for evaluating any type of composite endpoints in rare disease trials and may allow a better evaluation of therapy efficacy including patients reported outcomes in addition to outcomes related to the diseases signs and symptoms.

Modifications in ocular microperfusion after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Cerebral embolization is a known complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) but the effect of the procedure on the ocular perfusion is currently unclear. Thus, we investigated post-procedural morphologic and perfusion changes of the retina and choroid, using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and color fundus photography (CFP) in a prospective cohort study. Ophthalmic examinations were conducted pre- and post-TAVI. OCTA images were analyzed quantitatively based on vessel density and skeleton density of the superficial and deep retinal plexus as well as the signal intensity and flow deficits in the choriocapillaris. CFP images were assessed for presence of acute retinal ischemia, optic nerve swelling, vessel emboli, hemorrhages and cotton wool spots. Data was analyzed using linear mixed models. Twenty patients (9 women; 11 men) at a mean age of 81 ± 6 years were included. Pre- and post-interventional ocular imaging data were available for 32 eyes. The analysis revealed a significant impairment of the choriocapillaris perfusion after TAVI with an increased proportion of flow deficits (p = 0.044). When controlling for blood pressure, the average size of choriocapillaris flow voids was significantly increased (systolic and diastolic, p = 0.039 and 0.029). Qualitatively, focal areas of retinal ischemia were detected on OCTA in 33% of participants. Silent emboli or cotton wool spots were identified on CFP in 21%. Our findings indicate a reduced choroidal perfusion as well as areas of retinal ischemia and embolization in a considerable proportion of patients following TAVI. Pending confirmation in a larger sample, these complications merit monitoring as well as inclusion in consent procedures for TAVI.

Safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection devices for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An updated meta-analysis

Background and Aims

Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices are employed to capture embolic debris and reduce the risk of stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Evidence is mixed regarding the safety and efficacy of CEP. We aimed to summarize the safety and effectiveness of CEP use during TAVR.

Methods

Electronic databases, including PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase, were searched using relevant search terms for articles relating to CEP. All relevant data from 20 studies were extracted into a standardized form. Statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.4. Odds ratio (OR) or mean differences (MDs) were used to estimate the desired outcome with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Twenty studies (eight randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 210,871 patients (19,261 in the CEP group and 191,610 in TAVR without the CEP group) were included. The use of CEP was associated with a lower odds of 30-day mortality by 39% (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.53-0.70) and stroke by 31% (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.52-0.92). Comparing devices, benefit in terms of mortality and stroke was observed with the use of the Sentinel device (Boston Scientific), but not among other devices. No differences were observed in the outcomes of acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding events, or major vascular complications between groups. When only RCTs were included, there were no observed differences in the primary or secondary outcomes for CEP versus no CEP use during TAVR.

Conclusions

The totality of evidence suggests a net benefit for the use of CEP, weighted by studies in which the Sentinal device was used. However, given the RCT subanalysis, additional evidence is needed to identify patients at the highest risk of stroke for optimal decision-making.

Cerebral Embolic Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment option for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis across the entire spectrum of surgical risk. Recent trial data have led to the expansion of TAVR into lower-risk patients. With iterative technological advances and successive increases in procedural experience, the occurrence of complications following TAVR has declined. One of the most feared complications remains stroke, and patients consider stroke a worse outcome than death. There has therefore been great interest in strategies to mitigate the risk of stroke in patients undergoing TAVR. In this paper, we will discuss mechanisms and predictors of stroke after TAVR and describe the currently available cerebral embolic protection devices, including their design and relevant clinical studies pertaining to their use. We will also review the current overall evidence base for cerebral embolic protection during TAVR and ongoing randomized controlled trials. Finally, we will discuss our pragmatic recommendations for the use of cerebral embolic protection devices in patients undergoing TAVR.

An Updated Meta-Analysis on Cerebral Embolic Protection in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Intervention Stratified by Baseline Surgical Risk and Device Type

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI) can lead to the embolization of debris. Capturing the debris by cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices may reduce the risk of stroke. New evidence has allowed us to examine the effects of CEP in patients undergoing TAVI. We aimed to assess the effects of CEP overall and stratified by the device used (SENTINEL or TriGuard) and the surgical risk of the patients.

Methods

We selected randomized controlled trials using electronic databases through September 17, 2022. We estimated random-effects risk ratios (RR) with (95% confidence interval) and calculated absolute risk differences at 30 days across baseline surgical risks derived from the TAVI trials for any stroke (disabling and nondisabling) and all-cause mortality.

Results

Among 6 trials (n = 3921), CEP vs. control did not reduce any stroke [RR: 0.95 (0.50-1.81)], disabling [RR: 0.75 (0.18-3.16)] or nondisabling [RR: 0.99 (0.65-1.49)] strokes, or all-cause mortality [RR: 1.23 (0.55-2.77)]. However, when analyzed by device, SENTINEL reduced disabling stroke [RR: 0.46 (0.22-0.95)], translating into 6 fewer per 1000 in high-risk, 3 fewer per 1000 in intermediate-risk, and 1 fewer per 1000 in low surgical-risk patients. CEP vs. control did not reduce the risk of any bleeding [RR: 1.03 (0.44-2.40)], major vascular complications [RR: 1.41 (0.57-3.48)], or acute kidney injury [RR: 1.36 (0.57-3.28)].

Conclusions

This updated meta-analysis showed that SENTINEL CEP might reduce disabling stroke in patients undergoing TAVI. Patients with high and intermediate surgical risks were most likely to derive benefits.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients: Opportunities and Challenges

Over the past two decades, the rapid evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly. The prevalence of comorbidities in elderly AS patients presents a considerable challenge to the effectiveness and prognosis of patients after TAVR. In this article, we aim to summarize some of the clinical aspects of the current use of TAVR in elderly patients and attempt to highlight the challenges and issues that need further consideration.

Cerebral Embolic Risk in Coronary and Structural Heart Interventions: Clinical Evidence

Surgical and endovascular procedures for coronary and structural heart interventions carry a meaningful risk of acute stroke with greatly increased likelihood of disability and long-term neurocognitive sequelae. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures have focused our attention on a spectrum of procedure-related neurologic injuries that have led to various efforts to prevent ischemic injury with the use of embolic protection devices. As the number of patients undergoing surgical and transcatheter cardiac procedures in the United States continues to increase, the risk of iatrogenic brain injury is concerning, particularly in patient populations already at increased risk of thromboembolism and cognitive decline. In this study, we reviewed the current estimates of the incidence of iatrogenic cerebral embolization and ischemic infarction after surgical and percutaneous transcatheter interventions for coronary artery disease, stenotic aortic and mitral valves, atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage and patent foramen ovale closure. Our findings show that every year in the United States, nearly 2 million patients undergo coronary and structural heart interventions, with approximately 8000 at risk of experiencing a symptomatic stroke and 330,225 (95% CI, 249,948-430,377) at the risk of ischemic brain injury after the procedure. Given the increased use of surgical and endovascular cardiac procedures in clinical practice, the risk of iatrogenic cerebral embolism is significant and demands careful consideration through neurologic and cognitive assessments and appropriate risk mitigation.

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.

Clinical outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with TriGUARD 3™ cerebral embolic protection device

OBJECTIVE

Periprocedural stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a highly feared adverse event. The TriGUARD 3 cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) may have the potential benefit of reduction of embolic events, but it still remains unclear whether it reduces the incidence of periprocedural stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). We aimed to investigate whether the latest TriGUARD 3 CEPD reduces the incidence of clinically overt stroke within 72 h or at discharge after TAVR.

METHODS

In this prospective single-center study 117 patients (mean age 80.3 years, 53.8 % male) were included from July 2020 to December 2021.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint of this study, periprocedural clinically overt stroke or TIA, within 72 h or at discharge after TAVR with the TriGUARD 3 CEPD occurred in 1/117 pts (0.8 %). Secondary endpoints (device related issues such as life-threatening or disabling bleeding, acute kidney injury, major vascular complications) were reported in 4/117 pts (3.4 %).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the use of the latest TriGUARD 3™ CEPD in transfemoral TAVR seems to be associated with a low rate of clinically overt stroke and a low rate of device related adverse events, reflecting "real world" TAVR practice. However these results should be hypothesis generating and confirmed in a large RCT.

The search for optimal antithrombotic therapy in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: facts and uncertainties

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive procedure, which is used frequently in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. Most patients undergoing TAVI are over 80 years of age with a high bleeding as well as thrombotic risk. Despite the increasing safety of the procedure, thromboembolic events [stroke, (subclinical) valve thrombosis] remain prevalent. As a consequence, antithrombotic prophylaxis is routinely used and only recently new data on the efficacy and safety of antithrombotic drugs has become available. On the other hand, these antithrombotic drugs increase bleeding in a population with unique aortic stenosis-related bleeding characteristics (such as acquired von Willebrand factor defect and angiodysplasia). In this review, we discuss the impact of thromboembolic and bleeding events, the current optimal antithrombotic therapy based on registries and recent randomized controlled trials, as well as try to give a practical guide how to treat these high-risk patients. Finally, we discuss knowledge gaps and future research needed to fill these gaps.

Stroke prevention during and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: From cerebral protection devices to antithrombotic management

Since its conception, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has undergone important improvements both in the implantation technique and in transcatheter devices, allowing an enthusiastic adoption of this therapeutic approach in a wide population of patients previously without a surgical option and managed conservatively. Nowadays, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are typically managed with TAVI, regardless of their risk to surgery, improving the prognosis of patients and thus achieving an exponential global expansion of its use. However, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications remain a latent concern in TAVI recipients. Both complications can appear simultaneously in the periprocedural period or during the follow-up, and when minor, they resolved without apparent sequelae, but in a relevant percentage of cases, they are devastating, overshadowing the benefit achieved with TAVI. Our review outlines the etiology and incidence of thromboembolic complications associated with TAVI, the main current strategies for their prevention, and the implications of its pharmacological management at the follow-up in a TAVI population, mostly frail and predisposed to bleeding complications.

Managing complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

INTRODUCTION

Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a streamlined and standardized procedure, different complications still remain and need the operators to be properly trained about their management.

AREAS COVERED

This review article aims at offering a practical overview of the most impactful TAVI complications, analyzing, and discussing the potential risk factors, and focusing on the available strategies for their management.

EXPERT OPINION

Complications following TAVI have been decreasing thanks to technical advancements and operators experience. The thorough knowledge of potential complications and their prevention played a key role in the decreasing of complications rates. Pre-procedural, computed tomography angiography assessment of patient's anatomical characteristics, allows to properly choose and tailor the best strategy for managing complications in most of cases. Nevertheless, further research is required to shed lights about the optimal strategies to adopt for managing TAVI complications.

2021. The year in review. Structural heart interventions

Since the beginning of 2020, the corona virus (COVID-19) pandemic redefined in many ways the practice of cardiology, research and cardiology conferences. Virtual conferences replaced most major in-person venues. The number of “elective” structural heart interventions declined and clinical research endured major setbacks in regards to academic and industry-sponsored clinical trials. In this review, we attempt to provide a broad overview of the field for general and interventional cardiologists with a specific interest in structural heart interventions.

The year in cardiovascular medicine: interventional cardiology

Since last year’s report in the European Heart Journal, we have witnessed substantial progress in all aspects of interventional cardiology. Of note, the practice of interventional cardiology took place amidst successive waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to be a major burden for all healthcare professionals around the globe. In our yearly review, we shall revisit the developments in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), structural heart interventions, and adjunctive pharmacotherapy.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis: A systematic review

Background:

Transcatheter aortic valve in valve (Aviv) replacement has been shown to be an effective therapeutic option in patients with failed aortic bioprosthetic valves. This review intended to evaluate contemporary 1-year outcomes of Aviv in recent studies.

Methods:

A systematic review on outcomes of Aviv was performed using the best available evidence from studies obtained using a MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and SCOPUS search. Endpoints of interest were survival, coronary artery obstruction, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), stroke, pacemaker implantation, and structural valve deterioration.

Results:

A total of 3339 patients from 23 studies were included. Mean age was 68–80 years, 20%–50% were female, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ranged from 5.7 to 31.1. Thirty-day all-cause mortality ranged from 2% to 8%, and 1-year all-cause mortality ranged from 8% to 33%. Coronary artery obstruction risk after Aviv ranged from 0.6% to 4%. One-year stroke ranged from 2% to 8%. Moderate-severe PPM occurred in 11%–58%, and pacemaker rate at 1 year ranged from 5% to 12%.

Conclusion:

Transcatheter aortic ViV has emerged as an effective therapeutic option to treat patients with failed bioprostheses. The acceptable complication rate and favorable 1-year outcomes make Aviv an appropriate alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement.

Neurologic Dysfunction and Neuroprotection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a fast-growing procedure. Expanding to low-risk patients, it has surpassed surgical aortic valve implantation in frequency and has been associated with excellent outcomes. Stroke is a devastating complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Silent brain infarcts identified by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging are present in most patients following TAVI. Postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction are common neurologic complications. The stroke and silent brain infarcts are likely caused by particulate emboli released during the procedure. Intravascularly positioned cerebral embolic protection devices are designed to prevent debris from entering the aortic arch vessels to avoid stroke. Despite promising design, randomized clinical trials have not demonstrated a reduction in stroke in patients receiving cerebral embolic protection devices. Similarly, the association of cerebral embolic protection devices with silent brain infarcts, postoperative delirium, and cognitive dysfunction is uncertain. Monitored anesthesia care or conscious sedation is as safe as general anesthesia and is associated with lower cost, but different anesthetic techniques have not been shown to decrease stroke risk, postoperative delirium, or cognitive dysfunction. Anesthesiologists play important roles in providing perioperative care including management of neurologic events in patients undergoing TAVI. Large randomized clinical trials are needed that focus on the correlation between perioperative interventions and neurologic outcomes.

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

The evidence regarding the impact of cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) on outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes with the use of cerebral EPDs in TAVR. We performed a comprehensive EMBASE and PUBMED search to investigate randomized control studies or propensity score-matched retrospective studies which assessed patients undergoing TAVR with or without EPD up to April 2021. Endpoints of interest were in-hospital mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, pacemaker implantation, major bleeding, vascular complication, length of stay. Ten studies involving 173,002 patients with EPD (n = 16,898, 9.8%) and those without (n = 156,104, 90.2%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The use of EPD was associated with significantly lower risk of in-hospital stroke (odds ratio [95% confidential interval]: 0.64 [0.46; 0.89]), but similar rate of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [95% confidential interval]: 0.75 [0.54; 1.05]). No differences were observed in acute kidney injury, pacemaker implantation, major bleeding, vascular complication, length of stay. EPD during TAVR was associated with lower in-hospital stroke but did not affect procedural complications and length of stay.

How to reduce uncommon but severe transcatheter aortic valve implantation complications: stroke, thrombosis, endocarditis, cognitive decline?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, regardless of baseline surgical risk. The incidence of periprocedural complications has steadily declined over the years, thanks to technical advancement of transcatheter heart valves, delivery systems, and increased operators' experience. Beyond the most common periprocedural complications, there are a few uncommon but potentially severe complications that more often occur during follow-up, although they may also arise in the periprocedural phase. Stroke, infective endocarditis, valve thrombosis, and cognitive decline are among them. In this brief review, we describe the incidence, predictive factors, and potential preventive measures for those events.

Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2020: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the challenge of a global pandemic, 2020 has been an invaluable year in cardiology research with numerous important clinical trials published or presented virtually at major international meetings. This article aims to summarise these trials and place them in clinical context.

METHODS

The authors reviewed clinical trials presented at major cardiology conferences during 2020 including the American College of Cardiology, European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, European Society of Cardiology, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics and the American Heart Association. Trials with a broad relevance to the cardiology community and those with potential to change current practice were included.

RESULTS

A total of 87 key cardiology clinical trials were identified for inclusion. New interventional and structural cardiology data included trials evaluating bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) techniques, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI, instantaneous wave-free (iFR) physiological assessment, new generation stents (DynamX bioadaptor), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in low-risk patients, and percutaneous mitral or tricuspid valve interventions. Preventative cardiology data included new data with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (evolocumab and alirocumab), omega-3 supplements, evinacumab and colchicine in the setting of chronic coronary artery disease. Antiplatelet data included trials evaluating both the optimal length of course following PCI and combination of antiplatelet agents and regimes including combination antithrombotic therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Heart failure data included the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (sotagliflozin, empagliflozin and dapagliflozin) and mavacamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Electrophysiology trials included early rhythm control in AF and screening for AF.

CONCLUSION

This article presents a summary of key clinical cardiology trials during the past year and should be of relevance to both clinicians and cardiology researchers.