Effect of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on CNS Infarction in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Published

Journal Article

Importance: Stroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Objective: To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of cerebral embolic protection devices in reducing ischemic central nervous system (CNS) injury during SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of patients with calcific aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR at 18 North American centers between March 2015 and July 2016. The end of follow-up was December 2016. Interventions: Use of 1 of 2 cerebral embolic protection devices (n = 118 for suction-based extraction and n = 133 for intra-aortic filtration device) vs a standard aortic cannula (control; n = 132) at the time of SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction at 7 days (± 3 days) after the procedure. Secondary end points included a composite of mortality, clinical ischemic stroke, and acute kidney injury within 30 days after surgery; delirium; mortality; serious adverse events; and neurocognition. Results: Among 383 randomized patients (mean age, 73.9 years; 38.4% women; 368 [96.1%] completed the trial), the rate of freedom from CNS infarction at 7 days was 32.0% with suction-based extraction vs 33.3% with control (between-group difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -13.8% to 11.2%) and 25.6% with intra-aortic filtration vs 32.4% with control (between-group difference, -6.9%; 95% CI, -17.9% to 4.2%). The 30-day composite end point was not significantly different between suction-based extraction and control (21.4% vs 24.2%, respectively; between-group difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -13.5% to 7.9%]) nor between intra-aortic filtration and control (33.3% vs 23.7%; between-group difference, 9.7% [95% CI, -1.2% to 20.5%]). There were no significant differences in mortality (3.4% for suction-based extraction vs 1.7% for control; and 2.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 1.5% for control) or clinical stroke (5.1% for suction-based extraction vs 5.8% for control; and 8.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 6.1% for control). Delirium at postoperative day 7 was 6.3% for suction-based extraction vs 15.3% for control (between-group difference, -9.1%; 95% CI, -17.1% to -1.0%) and 8.1% for intra-aortic filtration vs 15.6% for control (between-group difference, -7.4%; 95% CI, -15.5% to 0.6%). Mortality and overall serious adverse events at 90 days were not significantly different across groups. Patients in the intra-aortic filtration group vs patients in the control group experienced significantly more acute kidney injury events (14 vs 4, respectively; P = .02) and cardiac arrhythmias (57 vs 30; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing SAVR, cerebral embolic protection devices compared with a standard aortic cannula did not significantly reduce the risk of CNS infarction at 7 days. Potential benefits for reduction in delirium, cognition, and symptomatic stroke merit larger trials with longer follow-up. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389894.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Mack, MJ; Acker, MA; Gelijns, AC; Overbey, JR; Parides, MK; Browndyke, JN; Groh, MA; Moskowitz, AJ; Jeffries, NO; Ailawadi, G; Thourani, VH; Moquete, EG; Iribarne, A; Voisine, P; Perrault, LP; Bowdish, ME; Bilello, M; Davatzikos, C; Mangusan, RF; Winkle, RA; Smith, PK; Michler, RE; Miller, MA; O'Sullivan, KL; Taddei-Peters, WC; Rose, EA; Weisel, RD; Furie, KL; Bagiella, E; Moy, CS; O'Gara, PT; Messé, SR; Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN),

Published Date

  • August 8, 2017

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 318 / 6

Start / End Page

  • 536 - 547

PubMed ID

  • 28787505

Pubmed Central ID

  • 28787505

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1538-3598

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1001/jama.2017.9479

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States