Abdelaziz, Ahmed

ABSTRACT Stroke remains one of the most devastating complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Although cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPDs) have emerged to mitigate patients' risks, their impact on stroke risk, as well as other clinical and neurocognitive outcomes after TAVI, remains uncertain. We aimed to assess whether CEPDs alleviate stroke risks and neurocognitive outcomes after TAVI. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and the Cochrane CENTRAL from inception until May 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of CEPD compared to the control group (no CEPD) in adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing TAVI. The primary endpoint was the incidence of all‐cause stroke. In contrast, the secondary endpoints included disabling stroke, systemic bleeding, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Additionally, we assessed neurological outcomes, including changes in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and the presence of new ischemic lesions. Nine RCTs comprising 11,696 patients were included in the final analysis. The use of CEPDs showed no statistical difference in reducing all‐cause stroke compared to the control group (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.73–1.15], p = 0.44). Additionally, there was no significant difference in other studies' secondary outcomes, including disabling stroke, MACCE, systemic bleeding, or neurological outcomes, such as worsening NISSS, decline in MoCA score, and the presence of new ischemic lesions. The use of CEPD during TAVI showed no benefit in reducing the risks of all‐cause stroke and other neurological outcomes studied.

Background: Air pollution is a leading cause of cardiovascular diseases including ischemic heart disease and stroke contributing to millions of deaths, with elevated blood pressure, endothelial dysfunction, and systemic inflammation being some of the most important underlying mechanisms. Various studies showed a promising beneficial effect of indoor air purification on various health outcomes, including blood pressure. We aimed to assess the effect of indoor air purification on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and provide a rationale for home use of these filters. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus for published literature up to May 2024. We included studies that assessed air purification, including HEPA filters or electrostatic air filters, as an intervention compared to no intervention. The primary outcome of interest was mean changes in blood pressure both systolic and diastolic. Secondary outcomes were biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress. Mean difference (MD) and 95% CI was used in a fixed-effect model to analyze the data. Results: A total of 21 studies were included in our meta-analysis with a total of 1955 participants. Air purification was associated with a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD: -2.42, 95% CI: -3.42, -1.41), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD: -1.11, 95% CI: -1.76, -0.46). However, there was no significant changes in levels of inflammatory biomarkers or oxidative stress. Conclusion: Indoor air purification was associated with significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels, but questions arise whether these reductions are clinically relevant or not. Further studies should assess these findings. Conclusion: Indoor air purification was associated with significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels, but questions arise whether these reductions are clinically relevant or not. Further studies should assess these findings.