Dataset Information

The Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

ABSTRACT: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is the therapy of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis who have prohibitive or high surgical risk. However, the benefit of TAVR is attenuated by the occurrence of major disabling stroke which is associated with increased mortality and early-reduced quality of life. Despite advances in TAVR technology, stroke remains a serious complication that is associated with significant negative outcomes. The majority of these occur in the acute phase following TAVR where cerebral embolic events are frequent. Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) have been developed to minimize the risk of peri-procedural ischemic stroke during TAVR. CEPD have the potential to reduce intraprocedural burden of new silent ischemic injury. In this review we outline the etiology and incidence of stroke in TAVR population, and systematically review current evidence for cerebral embolic protection devices.

SUBMITTER: Demir OM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6205957 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Demir Ozan M OM Iannopollo Gianmarco G Mangieri Antonio A Ancona Marco B MB Regazzoli Damiano D Mitomo Satoru S Colombo Antonio A Weisz Giora G Latib Azeem A

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 20181023

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is the therapy of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis who have prohibitive or high surgical risk. However, the benefit of TAVR is attenuated by the occurrence of major disabling stroke which is associated with increased mortality and early-reduced quality of life. Despite advances in TAVR technology, stroke remains a serious complication that is associated with significant negative outcomes. The majority of these occur in the acute phase followi ...[more]

PMID: 30406115

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStroke remains a devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which has persisted despite refinements in technique and increased operator experience. While cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been developed to mitigate this risk, data regarding their impact on stroke and other outcomes after TAVR are limited.MethodsWe performed an observational study using data from the Society for Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Patients were included if they underwent elective or urgent transfemoral TAVR between January 2018 and December 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. To adjust for confounding, the association between EPD use and clinical outcomes was evaluated using instrumental variable analysis, a technique designed to support causal inference from observational data, with site-level preference for EPD use within the same quarter of the procedure as the instrument. We also performed a propensity score-based secondary analysis using overlap weights.ResultsOur analytic sample included 123 186 patients from 599 sites. The use of EPD during TAVR increased over time, reaching 28% of sites and 13% of TAVR procedures by December 2019. There was wide variation in EPD use across hospitals, with 8% of sites performing >50% of TAVR procedures with an EPD and 72% performing no procedures with an EPD in the last quarter of 2019. In our primary analysis using the instrumental variable model, there was no association between EPD use and in-hospital stroke (adjusted relative risk, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.68-1.13]; absolute risk difference, -0.15% [95% CI, -0.49 to 0.20]). However, in our secondary analysis using the propensity score-based model, EPD use was associated with 18% lower odds of in-hospital stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]; absolute risk difference, -0.28% [95% CI, -0.52 to -0.03]). Results were generally consistent across the secondary end points, as well as subgroup analyses.ConclusionsIn this nationally representative observational study, we did not find an association between EPD use for TAVR and in-hospital stroke in our primary instrumental variable analysis, and found only a modestly lower risk of in-hospital stroke in our secondary propensity-weighted analysis. These findings provide a strong basis for large-scale randomized, controlled trials to test whether EPDs provide meaningful clinical benefit for patients undergoing TAVR.

Project description:ImportanceStroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and adverse effects of cerebral embolic protection devices in reducing ischemic central nervous system (CNS) injury during SAVR.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial of patients with calcific aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR at 18 North American centers between March 2015 and July 2016. The end of follow-up was December 2016.InterventionsUse of 1 of 2 cerebral embolic protection devices (n = 118 for suction-based extraction and n = 133 for intra-aortic filtration device) vs a standard aortic cannula (control; n = 132) at the time of SAVR.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction at 7 days (± 3 days) after the procedure. Secondary end points included a composite of mortality, clinical ischemic stroke, and acute kidney injury within 30 days after surgery; delirium; mortality; serious adverse events; and neurocognition.ResultsAmong 383 randomized patients (mean age, 73.9 years; 38.4% women; 368 [96.1%] completed the trial), the rate of freedom from CNS infarction at 7 days was 32.0% with suction-based extraction vs 33.3% with control (between-group difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -13.8% to 11.2%) and 25.6% with intra-aortic filtration vs 32.4% with control (between-group difference, -6.9%; 95% CI, -17.9% to 4.2%). The 30-day composite end point was not significantly different between suction-based extraction and control (21.4% vs 24.2%, respectively; between-group difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -13.5% to 7.9%]) nor between intra-aortic filtration and control (33.3% vs 23.7%; between-group difference, 9.7% [95% CI, -1.2% to 20.5%]). There were no significant differences in mortality (3.4% for suction-based extraction vs 1.7% for control; and 2.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 1.5% for control) or clinical stroke (5.1% for suction-based extraction vs 5.8% for control; and 8.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 6.1% for control). Delirium at postoperative day 7 was 6.3% for suction-based extraction vs 15.3% for control (between-group difference, -9.1%; 95% CI, -17.1% to -1.0%) and 8.1% for intra-aortic filtration vs 15.6% for control (between-group difference, -7.4%; 95% CI, -15.5% to 0.6%). Mortality and overall serious adverse events at 90 days were not significantly different across groups. Patients in the intra-aortic filtration group vs patients in the control group experienced significantly more acute kidney injury events (14 vs 4, respectively; P = .02) and cardiac arrhythmias (57 vs 30; P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing SAVR, cerebral embolic protection devices compared with a standard aortic cannula did not significantly reduce the risk of CNS infarction at 7 days. Potential benefits for reduction in delirium, cognition, and symptomatic stroke merit larger trials with longer follow-up.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389894.

Project description:BackgroundCoronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rare, yet life-threatening, complication. The routine use of left main (LM) protection with or without stent placement in high-risk patients remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of LM protection during TAVR and identify anatomic factors associated with need for stent placement.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all TAVR cases (native and valve-in-valve) performed in our institution between 2014 and 2019 and identified patients who underwent LM protection with a coronary wire, balloon, and/or stent during the procedure. We compared the pre-TAVR computed tomography aortic root characteristics, procedural data, short-, and long-term outcomes among the patients who eventually received an LM stent and those who did not.ResultsAmong 1925 TAVR patients, 41 (2.1%) underwent LM protection, and 10 of them (25%) had eventually a stent placed in the LM for threatened obstruction after valve deployment. In the native TAVR group (n = 35), 8 patients underwent LM stenting. A larger TAVR prosthesis, larger annular circumference (83.8 vs 76.1 mm; P = .038), lower ratio of sinotubular junction diameter to prosthesis size (1.02 vs 1.11; P = .032), and longer left coronary cusp (15.1 vs 13.9 mm; P = .18) were associated with higher incidence of LM stenting. In the valve-in-valve TAVR group (n = 6), 5 patients had a valve-to-coronary distance of less than 4 mm, and 2 of them received an LM stent. Both stent and nonstent groups had excellent outcomes with no major adverse cardiovascular events or coronary obstruction at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 351 days, 4 patients died (9.7%) (1 in the stent and 3 in the nonstent group), without any cases of late coronary obstruction or percutaneous coronary intervention in either group.ConclusionsLM protection with a coronary guidewire, balloon, or stent is a safe and effective method of coronary protection during TAVR in appropriately selected high-risk patients. Annular circumference, prosthesis size, left coronary cusp length, LM ostial height, and ratio of sinotubular junction to prosthesis size are important predictors of stent deployment.

Dataset Information

The Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Publications

The Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets