000 03484nam a22003497a 4500
008 221018s20222022 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022 _a0028-4793
024 _a10.1056/NEJMoa2204961 [doi]
040 _aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099 _a36121045
245 _aCerebral Embolic Protection during Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.
251 _aNew England Journal of Medicine. 2022 Sep 17
252 _aN Engl J Med. 2022 Sep 17
253 _aThe New England journal of medicine
260 _c2022
260 _fFY2023
260 _p2022 Sep 17
265 _saheadofprint
266 _d2022-10-20
520 _aBACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis can lead to embolization of debris. Capture of debris by devices that provide cerebral embolic protection (CEP) may reduce the risk of stroke.
520 _aCONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR, the use of CEP did not have a significant effect on the incidence of periprocedural stroke, but on the basis of the 95% confidence interval around this outcome, the results may not rule out a benefit of CEP during TAVR. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PROTECTED TAVR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04149535.). Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.
520 _aMETHODS: We randomly assigned patients with aortic stenosis in a 1:1 ratio to undergo transfemoral TAVR with CEP (CEP group) or without CEP (control group). The primary end point was stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge (whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population. Disabling stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, delirium, major or minor vascular complications at the CEP access site, and acute kidney injury were also assessed. A neurology professional examined all the patients at baseline and after TAVR.
520 _aRESULTS: A total of 3000 patients across North America, Europe, and Australia underwent randomization; 1501 were assigned to the CEP group and 1499 to the control group. A CEP device was successfully deployed in 1406 of the 1489 patients (94.4%) in whom an attempt was made. The incidence of stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge did not differ significantly between the CEP group and the control group (2.3% vs. 2.9%; difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 0.5; P = 0.30). Disabling stroke occurred in 0.5% of the patients in the CEP group and in 1.3% of those in the control group. There were no substantial differences between the CEP group and the control group in the percentage of patients who died (0.5% vs. 0.3%); had a stroke, a transient ischemic attack, or delirium (3.1% vs. 3.7%); or had acute kidney injury (0.5% vs. 0.5%). One patient (0.1%) had a vascular complication at the CEP access site.
546 _aEnglish
650 _aIN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
651 _aMedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
657 _aJournal Article
700 _aSatler, Lowell
790 _aAbdel-Wahab M, Allocco DJ, Baron SJ, Gooley R, Harrington K, Horr S, Kapadia SR, Karha J, Kodali S, Krishnaswamy A, Leon M, Linke A, Makkar R, Massberg S, Meredith IT, Messe SR, Modolo R, Pocock S, PROTECTED TAVR Investigators, Rottbauer W, Satler L, Seeger J, Sondergaard L, Stoler RC, Thourani VH, Waggoner T
856 _uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2204961
_zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2204961
942 _cART
_dArticle
999 _c270
_d270