Elkasaby, Hamza

Background: We conducted an updated meta-analysis of the routine use of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices in Transcathter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR). This analysis follows the recent BHF PROTECTED TAVI trial which is the largest randomized controlled trial to date. Methods: Electronic databases were searched through April 2025 for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was overall incidence of stroke, disabling stroke and non-disabling stroke all reported at 2-5 days and 30 days were primary outcomes for our analyses. Results: 8 RCTs with a total of 11,692 patients were included. No statistically significant difference was found between CEP group and the control group in overall stroke incidence at 2-5 days and 30 days as the following (RR=0.95, 95%CI: [0.75,1.19], p=0.64) and (RR=0.93, 95%CI: [0.57,1.53], p=0.79). Similarly, the pooled analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of disabling stroke at 2-5 days (RR=0.70, 95%CI: [0.41,1.18], p=0.18), and at 30 days (RR=1.18, 95%CI: [0.36,3.87], p=0.78). CEP group and control group didn’t show statistically significant difference in non- disabling stroke at 2-5 days and 30 days as the results showed: (RR=1.17, 95%CI: [0.84,1.63], p=0.36) and (RR=0.86, 95%CI: [0.49,1.51], P=0.61) respectively. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis found no statistically significant evidence that cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices reduce the incidence of stroke—disabling or non-disabling in the 2-5 days following TAVR or after 30 days. Major bleeding, major vascular complication and AKI showed no statistically significant results indicating a neutral safety profile.

Introduction: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) is commonly encountered in patients with coronary artery disease and is associated with adverse outcomes, including increased short- and long-term mortality. While percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has shown potential clinical benefits in CTO patients, its comparative effectiveness against optimal medical therapy (OMT) remains debated. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of CTO-PCI versus OMT on key cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane. We assessed outcomes including all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke, and repeat revascularization. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: 25 studies with a total of 22102 patients were included. Compared to OMT alone, CTO-PCI was associated with a significant reduction in the overall all-cause mortality (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53–0.82; p=0.0002), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.52–0.82; p=0.0003) and MACE (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71–0.98; p=0.03). No statistically significant differences were observed between CTO-PCI and OMT in rates of Stroke (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.68–1.50; p=0.96), Subsequent PCI/CABG (revascularization) (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.78–1.29; p=0.97) or Heart Failure Hospitalization (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.37–1.59; p=0.48) Conclusion: This is the largest and most updated systematic review meta analysis for CTO-PCI vs OMT. Our findings show that CTO-PCI is associated with significantly lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to OMT. However, no significant differences were observed between the two strategies in the incidence of stroke, need for subsequent revascularization (PCI/CABG), or heart failure hospitalization.