IMPORTANCE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment option for many patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis; however, debris dislodged during the procedure can cause embolic stroke. The Sentinel cerebral embolic protection (CEP) device is approved for capture and removal of embolic material during TAVR but its efficacy has been debated.

OBJECTIVE: To explore regional differences in the association of CEP utilization with stroke outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of a prospective, postmarket, randomized clinical trial evaluating TAVR performed with or without the CEP took place at 51 hospitals in the US, Europe, and Australia from February 2020 to January 2022. Patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis treated with transfemoral TAVR were included. Randomization was stratified according to center, operative risk, and intended TAVR valve type. Patients were excluded if the left common carotid or brachiocephalic artery had greater than 70% stenosis or if the anatomy precluded placement of the CEP device. Data for this post hoc study were analyzed from August to October 2024.

INTERVENTION: TAVR with or without CEP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of all stroke events at hospital discharge or 72 hours post-TAVR, whichever came first. Neurological examinations were performed at baseline and postprocedure to identify stroke, disabling stroke, and other neurological outcomes.

RESULTS: The Stroke Protection With Sentinel During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (PROTECTED TAVR) trial enrolled and randomized 3000 patients (1803 [60.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 78.9 [7.8] years): 1833 in the US cohort (TAVR alone: 919, TAVR with CEP: 914) and 1167 patients in the outside the US (OUS) cohort (TAVR alone: 580, TAVR with CEP: 587). Patients in the US cohort were younger, more predominantly male, had a lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and had a higher prevalence of bicuspid aortic valve, diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease compared with the OUS cohort. In the main trial, the incidence of stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge did not differ significantly between the CEP group and the control group, and there was no interaction by geographic region. In this post hoc analysis, patients treated with CEP in the US cohort exhibited a 50% relative risk reduction for overall stroke and a 73% relative risk reduction for disabling stroke compared to TAVR alone; a treatment effect on stroke risk reduction was not observed in the OUS cohort.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The PROTECTED TAVR trial could not show that the use of CEP had a significant effect on the incidence of periprocedural stroke during TAVR. Although there was no significant interaction by geographic region, this exploratory post hoc analysis suggests a trend toward greater stroke reduction in the US cohort but not in the OUS cohort. These findings are hypothesis generating, and further research is needed to determine if regional differences in patient characteristics or procedural practices affect CEP efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04149535.