Cerebral embolic protection systems for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Gąsior, Tomasz; Bijoch, Julia; Wojakowski, Wojciech

doi:10.1111/joic.12573

Cited by 24 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It consists of a larger filter area with a smaller mesh pore size than previous generations (Table 1). TriGuard 3 includes an over the wire design via a 6 F femoral sheath for PigTail catheter placement, thereby eliminating the need for a third puncture site [51].…”

Section: Sentinel® Cerebral Embolic Protection System (Boston Scientimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its isolation zone is thought to dynamically stabilize the device during positioning and reducing device migration and decoupling. No clinical data have been published so far, and currently, the Point-Guard is only for investigational use [51].…”

Section: Point-guard™ Dynamic Cerebral Embolic Protection (Transversementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The system is designed as an embolic filter with an incorporated PigTail catheter that can be advanced simultaneously through a single femoral puncture site. It consists of a 125-μm pore-sized filter system, which is positioned in the aorta and is expected to accommodate in anatomies up to 35 mm in diameter due to its flexible nitinol design [51].…”

Section: Emblok™ Embolic Protection System (Innovative Cardiovascularmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The heparin-coated mesh has the smallest pore size (60 μm) among all available CEPs. For this reason, it might even safeguard the cerebrum from smaller sized debris [51]. The PROTEMBO SF Trial (NCT 03325283) is set to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the ProtEmbo® System when used to provide embolic protection during TAVI.…”

Section: Protembo® Cerebral Protection System (Protembis Gmbh)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Filterlex Medical Ltd. recently introduced the Captis™ Embolic Protection System-a system consisting of a filter-covered collapsible frame and filter pockets that aims for "full-body embolic protection" by deflecting embolic particles away from the aortic arch and capturing them in the pockets to avoid renal embolism. The Emboliner™ Embolic Protection Catheter (Emboline, Inc.) is another CEP system aiming for complete cerebral and peripheral protection [51]. It is being evaluated in the SafePass 2 Trial with results presented at TCT 2019, showing the feasibility of the device.…”

Section: Other Cep Devices/novel Technologies Providing Full-body Embmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cerebral Protection Devices during Transcatheter Interventions: Indications, Benefits, and Limitations

Haußig

Linke

2020

Curr Cardiol Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review Stroke remains a devastating complication of cardiovascular interventions. This review is going to discuss stroke rates and outcomes in different cardiovascular procedures with a highlight on the current evidence for the use of cerebral protection devices (CPD). Recent Findings Depending on the quality of neurological assessment, stroke occurs in up to 9.1% after TAVI, 3.9% after mitral clipping, 3.1% in LAAO patients, 0.4% after PCIs, and 1.8% after catheter ablation. CPDs are available for routine use. They are easy to use in most anatomies, feasible, and safe. Data on clinical impact and stroke reduction from RCTs are still missing. Summary Most evidence for the routine use of CPDs exists in TAVI patients, who are at the highest risk. The PROTECTED TAVI RCT will shed more light on the clinical impact of CPD-use in TAVI patients. In other cardiovascular procedures like mitral clipping, PCIs, and ablation, the current data do not support the routine use of CPDs in these patients. Keywords Cerebral protection. Stroke. Cardiovascular interventions Abbreviations AS Aortic stenosis CEL Cerebral embolic lesion CVE Cerebrovascular event CPD Cerebral protection device DW-MRI Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging GFR Glomerular filtration rate LAAO Left atrial appendage occlusion PCI Percutaneous coronary intervention SBI Silent brain infarct TAVI Transcatheter aortic valve implantation VIV Valve in valve VT Ventricular tachycardia This article is part of the Topical Collection on Structural Heart Disease

show abstract

Section: Sentinel® Cerebral Embolic Protection System (Boston Scientimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Point-guard™ Dynamic Cerebral Embolic Protection (Transversementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Emblok™ Embolic Protection System (Innovative Cardiovascularmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Protembo® Cerebral Protection System (Protembis Gmbh)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Other Cep Devices/novel Technologies Providing Full-body Embmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cerebral Protection Devices during Transcatheter Interventions: Indications, Benefits, and Limitations

Haußig

Linke

2020

Curr Cardiol Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Outcome of patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting and severe calcific aortic stenosis receiving transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Höllriegel

Spindler

Kiefer

et al. 2019

Cathet Cardio Intervent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on early safety at 30 days and 1-year mortality in patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background: The use of TAVR in patients with previous CABG suffering from severe aortic stenosis has increased in the last years. Methods: Consecutive TAVR patients were stratified according to previous CABG versus no previous cardiac surgery (control). All-cause 1-year mortality and early safety at 30 days were evaluated. Results: In the unmatched cohort and compared to control (n = 2,364), CABG (n = 260) were younger, more often male and suffered more often from comorbidities leading to an increased STS-score (p < .001). The rate of early safety events at 30 days was comparable between CABG and control (21.2% vs. 24.6%, p = .22) with a higher mortality in CABG (9.6% vs. 5.3%, p = .005). All-cause 1-year mortality was higher in CABG compared to controls (HR 1.51 [95%-CI 1.15-1.97], p = .003). Applying Cox regression analysis, both 30-day (HR 1.57 [95%-CI 0.97-2.53], p = .067) and all-cause 1-year mortality (HR 1.24 [95%-CI 0.91-1.70], p = .174) were not significantly different between groups. After propensity-score matching, the rate of early safety events at 30 days was lower in CABG compared to controls (21.6% vs. 31.7%, p = .02). Thirty-day (9.1% vs. 7.7%, p = .596) and all-cause 1-year mortality (24.0% vs. 23.1%, p = .520, HR 1.14 [95%-CI 0.77-1.69], p = .520) were not different between groups. Conclusion: In patients receiving TAVR, previous CABG was not associated with an increase in periprocedural complications and all-cause 1-year mortality when adjusted for other comorbidities.

show abstract