4.6 Article

Ischemic Stroke With Cerebral Protection System During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

期刊

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
卷 13, 期 18, 页码 2149-2155

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.039

关键词

cerebral embolic protection device; cerebral protection system; Sentinel; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes with use of the Sentinel cerebral protection system (CPS) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND The role of the Sentinel CPS in preventing clinical ischemic stroke has been controversial. METHODS The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from the last three quarters of 2017, after the approval of the Sentinel CPS device, was queried to identify hospitalizations for TAVR. A 1:2 propensity score-matched analysis to compare in-hospital outcomes with versus without use of the CPS. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ischemic strokes. RESULTS A total of 36,220 weighted discharges of patients who underwent TAVR (525 with the CPS and 35,695 without) were identified. The overall percentages of ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes were 2.4% and 0.2%, respectively. After propensity score matching (525 CPS, 1,050 no CPS), the risk for ischemic stroke was tower with use of the CPS (1 % vs. 3.8%, odd ratio [OR]: 0.243 (95% confidence interval: 0.095 to 0.619); p = 0.003). The cost of the index hospitalization was higher with use of the CPS ($47,783 vs. $44,578; p = 0.002). In multivariate regression analysis, use of the CPS was independently associated with a lower risk for ischemic stroke (OR: 0.380; 95% confidence interval: 0.157 to 0.992; p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS Use of the Sentinel CPS in patients undergoing TAVR is associated with a tower incidence of ischemic stroke and in-hospital mortality, without an increased risk for procedural complications but with an increased cost of the index hospitalization. (C) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据