Valvular & structural heart disease
When absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence: the case of routine use of cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Pooled result · All strokeResult — go to the resultMedian relative risk 0.94 95% CrI 0.72–1.25Authors' conclusion
Current-generation CEP devices are ineffective in reducing periprocedural TAVI-stroke risk to a clinically relevant degree, rendering future trials with these devices futile.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)
- Participants
- 11,590 patients8 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
- Comparison
- Transfemoral TAVI with use of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) versus transfemoral TAVI without CEP
- CEPn = 5,921
- Controln = 5,669
- Outcome
- All stroke
Methodological detailssystematic search, randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
- Systematic search
- Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Median relative risk
0.94
95% CrI 0.72–1.25
By group
Control
2.9%
prevalence
CEPvs control
median RR 0.94 (95% CrI 0.72–1.25)
- Mean ARD
- −0.17%
- NNT
- 588
- Posterior probability of a clinically relevant CEP effect
- <1%
Further pooled results
| Outcome | Control | Median RR (95% CrI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabling stroke (secondary outcome) | prevalence 1.4% | 0.76 (0.44–1.23) | |
| 0.512Median relative risk (log scale) |
- Disabling stroke (secondary outcome) — mean ARD
- −0.36%
- Disabling stroke (secondary outcome) — NNT
- 278
- Disabling stroke (secondary outcome) — posterior probability of a clinically relevant CEP effect
- <1%
Original publication
When absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence: the case of routine use of cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Heart. Published 10 June 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →