Understanding Neurologic Complications Following TAVR

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a groundbreaking treatment modality for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis. Despite the rapid progression in indications to include intermediate-risk patients, the risk of peri-procedural stroke remains, with a higher incidence rate than previously reported. Accurate assessment of peri-procedural stroke rates requires selection of careful and meaningful trial endpoints during evaluation of neuroprotective devices. In this article, we review recommendations and stroke definitions from academic research consortiums along with device trial results.

Disclosure
Mohammed Imran Ghare is funded by an NIH (2T35HL007649-31) grant to Yale University.
Correspondence
Alexandra Lansky, 135 College Street, Suite 101, New Haven, CT 06510, USA. E: alexandra.lansky@yale.edu
Received date
13 July 2017
Accepted date
23 August 2017
Citation
Interventional Cardiology Review 2018;13(1):27–32.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2017:25:1

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an innovative treatment modality for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). After gaining initial market approval in Europe in 2007 and 4 years later in the US, TAVR continues to make large strides. An estimated 340,000 TAVR procedures have been completed in Europe in the immediate 5 years after approval and a further 10,000 procedures in the US were completed in the 2 years following approval in 2011.1 Global TAVR procedure volumes are expected to reach 300,000 annually, ushered in by the broadening of indications from everemerging data. Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) I A and B were pivotal, initial trials, that established TAVR as an effective treatment for patients who were not surgical candidates.2–4 More recently, indications have continued to expand with the PARTNER II and Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) trial results demonstrating TAVR as a non-inferior alternative to surgery in patients at intermediate risk, leading to US approval in this expanded population.5,6 TAVR is not without its complications; cerebrovascular accidents are one of the most important and clinically significant adverse events. Neuroprotection devices aimed at thwarting lesions, though promising, have yet to gain widespread clinical use. Establishing TAVR as the preferred treatment modality for severe symptomatic AS necessitates a more thorough understanding of iatrogenic stroke risk and measures to mitigate such complications.

Stroke Definitions

In the context of valve replacement clinical trials, three large research consortiums define stroke and provide guidelines for endpoint selection that are presented in Table 1: The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2, American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA), and more recently the Neurologic Academic Research Consortium (NeuroARC). Definitions for stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) have matured with neuroimaging techniques and increased availability of MRI, focusing on tissue-based criteria instead of symptoms.7,8 The most recent publication from the AHA/ASA addressing stroke definitions placed an emphasis on CNS infarctions, which is defined in Table 1.8 Accordingly, neuroimaging is sufficient for identification of CNS infarction and stroke. In contrast, VARC-2 defines both disabling and non-disabling strokes primarily based on a clinical evaluation and scoring tool, the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) (Table 1).9 Comparatively, the AHA/ASA definition distinguishes sole CNS infarct from clinical stroke while VARC-2 does not define silent infarcts nor is there a distinction between sole CNS infarct from clinical stroke. The approach outlined by NeuroARC defines the full spectrum of cerebrovascular injury combining well-established symptom-based criteria with more sensitive tissue-based findings.10 A more comprehensive set of definitions should spur data acquisition allowing a distinction to be made between clinically meaningful and incidental findings. Accordingly, NeuroARC classifications fall into three major types: “overt (acutely symptomatic) CNS injury (Type 1), covert (acutely asymptomatic) CNS injury (Type 2), and neurological dysfunction (acutely symptomatic) without CNS injury (Type 3)”. The three major types can be further broken down into subtypes; however, for the purposes of our discussion, we present the most frequently encountered definitions in Table 1.

Peri-procedural Stroke Rates

The rate of combined stroke or transient ischaemic attack in early trials (PARTNER A) comparing TAVR to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), was reported to be 5.5 % versus 2.4 % at 30 days (p=0.04) and 8.3 % versus 4.3 % (p=0.04) at one year, respectively.11 In PARTNER B, TAVR was compared to medical management for patients who were not suitable SAVR candidates: stroke was observed more frequently amongst TAVR patients at 1 year, 7.8 % versus 3.9 % (p=0.18).4 Importantly, there was no independent adjudication of stroke in the PARTNER I trials. Therefore, the observed difference in stroke rates and timings between surgery and TAVR must be considered hypothesis generating only. All other randomized trials point towards higher risk of stroke in SAVR compared to TAVR. For example, comparisons of Medtronic’s CoreValveTM to surgery observed all stroke less frequently in TAVR patients than in the surgical group at 2 years, 10.9 % versus 16.6 % (p=0.05).12 In a prospective, non-randomized, single-arm clinical study of CoreValve in patients at extreme surgical risk, combined stroke rates at 30 days and 1 year were reported to be 4.0 % and 7.0 %, respectively. More recently, SURTAVI results from an intermediate risk cohort found 4.5 % of patients in the SAVR group had a disabling stroke compared to the 2.6 % in TAVR group at 24 months.5 Thus, even among intermediate risk patients, stroke is a serious concern. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) registry captured 26,414 TAVR procedures as of December 2014. VARC defined, clinically adjudicated stroke rates were approximately 2 % in the STS/ACC TVT registry.13 Though the risk of stroke continues to decrease with advancements in valve technology, operator experience and patient selection, it remains a persistent and irrefutable reality.

Table 1: Selected Stoke Definitions

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 2: Current Neuroprotection Devices Under Investigation

Open in new tab
Open ppt

The stroke incidence reported in these randomized approval TAVI trials represents only a small proportion of the totality of symptomatic stroke as they report major and disabling strokes. Indeed, stroke rates in aortic valve replacement studies vary based on stroke definition. Severe strokes rates, including major and disabling strokes, ranged from 1.6 % to 5.9 % (see Figure 1). Recent studies that include mild, moderate and severe symptomatic strokes, have reported total stroke rates ranging from 9 % up to 28 % with systematic evaluation by neurologists and neuroimaging in both SAVR and TAVR (see Figure 2).14–16 Variability in stroke incident rates is a factor of both differences in definitions and ascertainment method.

Stroke rates alone do not provide a complete assessment of periprocedural brain injury. Surrogate markers for clinical outcomes aid in device appraisal as CNS infarction can be acutely clinically silent and hence not meet criteria for stroke. Routine neuroimaging studies in patients undergoing TAVR procedures report that acutely silent ischaemic cerebral infarction caused by showers of cerebral emboli during valve instrumentation and placement is frequent. Volumetric analysis of infarcted brain tissue in these imaging studies ranged from 1.5 cm3 to 4.3 cm3, translating into a shocking estimation of 1 billion synapses and 2 million neurons.17 The implications linking acutely spontaneous silent CNS embolization to subsequent neurologic and cognitive impairment are immense, yet a gap in knowledge must be filled with respect to long-term neurologic and cognitive consequences of procedure-related iatrogenic cerebral embolization.18,19

Peri-procedural Stroke Timing

Increased risk for stroke following TAVR can be categorized into three distinct phases. The early phase, defined as the immediate 24 hours following a procedure, is most likely a direct result of the procedure and accounts for up 50 % of all cerebrovascular injury.20–23 Still, following TAVR, patients are at an increased risk during the delayed phase between days 2 and 30. Finally, stroke can occur up to 1 year following TAVR during the late phase. Late phase strokes may be attributed to patient comorbidities such as asymptomatic carotid stenosis or atrial fibrillation amongst other patient-related risk factors.9 In the PARTNER IA trial, within the randomized SAVR cohort, 62.5 % of the major strokes occurred within the first 2 days, 25 % between 5 and 30 days, and only 1 occurred after 30 days.24 In patients undergoing TAVR, a more significant proportion of early strokes occurred >24h after the procedure.25,26 Of the 11 post-procedure strokes in inoperable PARTNER patients, 27 % were within 24 hours, 55 % between 1 and 5 days, and 18 % after 1 week.4 Similarly, amongst a multicentre Canadian study, only 25 % of 30-day strokes were seen within 24h post-procedure.27 These statistics represent only clinically overt strokes and do not reflect covert strokes. Neuro-TAVI was a prospective study assessing neurologic complications in 44 patients. Of the 77.3 % of patients receiving diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) imaging, 94 % had a CNS lesion identified between post-procedure days 2 and 6. Pre-procedure MRI imaging was not performed and it was assumed that all lesions were new. At 30 days, 43 % of patients had NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) worsening.28 NeuroARC classifies neurological event timing into two categories: peri-procedural occurring up to 30 days post-intervention and late occurring any time after 30 days post-procedure. Accurate and meaningful stroke rates following valve implantation cannot rely solely on clinical symptoms, yet the clinical consequences of surrogate markers for infarct such as DW-MRI remain poorly defined. The distinct phases in which stroke occurs post-procedurally play a significant role in determining optimal timepoints for identifying CNS lesions in TAVR and neuroprotection trials.

Figure 1: Stroke Rate Variation Among Several Studies: Severe Strokes

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 2: Stroke Rate Variation Among Several Studies: Mild, Moderate, and Severe Strokes

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Clinical Insight: Patient and Physician Perceptions

A peri-procedural stroke has calamitous clinical consequences for the patient. Peri-procedural stroke results in a five-fold increase in mortality.24,30 Furthermore, 40 % of survivors become permanently dependent, while a further 80 % experience social isolation and significant financial strain.31,32 It is therefore predictable that, when queried, a cohort of 785 patients viewed stroke as being 50 % to 250 % worse than death. Conversely, cardiologists viewed a patient’s death as being a worse outcome compared to stroke.33 Unfortunately, a disconnect exists between patient and physician perception that cannot be brushed aside.

Significance of Covert Stroke

Systematic studies in elderly patient populations without symptomatic cerebrovascular disease, notably the Framingham Study, Rotterdam Study, and Cardiovascular Health study, consistently identified MRI evidence of infarct.34–36 The Leukoaraiosis and Disability (LADIS) study, in elderly patients with minor neurocognitive symptoms and minor neurocognitive disability, identified MRI evidence of infarct to an ever greater extent.37 These significant findings cannot be written off as benign effects of ageing as there is evidence that covert MRI findings associated with subtle brain dysfunction are more prevalent than covert stroke.38,39 Correlating the wide array of neurologic findings with radiologic evidence in TAVR trials is an arduous task that can only benefit from accelerated, standardized data collection.

Stroke Mechanisms in the Context of TAVR

Early phase strokes are most likely related to procedural factors. Catheter manipulation within the aorta along with valve, catheter, and wire manipulation across the aortic valve are the most likely causes of procedural embolization.40–42 The transfemoral approach remains the preferred method for access, yet the STS/ACC TVT registry revealed that in 2013 the transapical approach, for a brief period, was used in more than 40 % of patients.13 A single-centre, prospective study comparing transapical to transfemoral access in 1000 patients found VARC-2-defined stroke rates to be comparable between the two approaches.43 Though access does not seem to play a part in stroke rates, in a study investigating use of a dual filter embolic protection device (SentinelTM), embolic debris was captured from 99 % of patients undergoing TAVR. Histological examination of the debris was significant for fibrin, amorphous calcium and connective tissue consistent with derivation from aortic valve leaflets or the aortic wall.44 In relation to TAVR, ischaemic stroke must be contrasted from global hypoxaemic injury. Ischaemic stroke always occurs in specific vascular territories, either arterial or venous, while global hypoxemic-ischaemic injury results in diffuse neuronal injury irrespective of vascular territory.45 Mortality rates for severe global hypoxic-ischaemic injury reach 80 % compared to <13 % with ischaemic stroke.46,47 Neuroprotection devices cannot be expected to impact global hypoxaemic-ischaemic injury and can only be beneficial for focal or multifocal ischaemic injury.

Selecting Neurologic Endpoints in Cardiovascular Trials

As stroke continues to be a serious peri-procedural complication of TAVR, it is important to collect accurate and meaningful data for device assessment. The most complete approach favours combining clinically validated screening tools, such as the NIHSS and MoCA, with sensitive imaging methods, such as DW-MRI.

Radiologic Guided Endpoints in Cardiovascular Trials

Ischaemic CNS tissue changes can be identified by DW-MRI within minutes to days.48,49 A Cochrane review comparing CT and MRI to the clinical diagnosis as a reference found DW-MRI to be significantly more sensitive than CT imaging.50 MRI is thus the preferred imaging modality for detection of CNS ischemia (see Figure 3). Accurate quantification of brain ischaemia further contributes to the utility of DW-MRI. Lesion volumes are maximal 5–7 days following injury, and can change 1–3 weeks after injury.51,52 NeuroARC recommends routine MRI imaging at 2–7 days following a procedure and non-routine MRI imaging if neurologic symptoms or delirium develop. Routine MRI endpoints should include Total Lesion Volume (TLV) (mm3).10 In a study comparing 32 TAVR patients to a historical cohort of 21 patients undergoing SAVR, 84 % of the TAVR patients had new DW-MRI lesions versus 48 % in the SAVR cohort. Both at the time of imaging and 3-month follow-up, there were no detectable cognitive defects when assessed by Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) or NIHSS.44 In a prospective study of 44 TAVR patients, DW-MRI lesions were detected in 94 % of patients, but neurologic impairment detected by NIHSS worsening occurred in only 22.6 % of patients at discharge and 14.8 % of patients at 30 days.28 As DW-MRI imaging is one of the most sensitive radiographic imaging modalities, there may be a poor correlation between DW-MRI endpoints and clinical symptoms in early trial phases. The goal of acquiring routine radiographic evidence is to make correlative assessments at later stages of trials, weeks and years after valve implantation.

Clinical Evaluations as Endpoints in Cardiovascular Trials

The tools available for clinical assessments of neurologic and functional impairment along with cognitive ability are numerous. In the acute setting of a stroke, the NIHSS, first described by Brott et al. in 1989, is a well-established and highly validated tool for assessing the severity and prognosis of a stroke.53–56 The NIHSS can be used in trials to routinely screen patients following cardiovascular procedures. Long-term stroke outcomes are assessed with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days to classify adverse events as disabling or non-disabling.57,58 Pre-procedural assessments of stroke, disability, delirium, cognition and quality of life should also be made and can be supplemented by baseline MRI imaging. Following a procedure, stroke, disability, cognition and quality of life should be assessed after 30–90 days and 1 year. A battery of tests is available to assess cognition.10 The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is commonly used as a screening, royalty-free clinical tool to detect frank cognitive changes.59 Interobserver variability in some tests is a real concern; however, most tests use standardized forms or calculators that reduce variability. With more routine acquisition and reporting, MoCA scores across multiple timepoints can be used to draw long-term correlations between DW-MRI acquired TLV and cognition.

Neuroprotective Devices

Currently, four embolic protection devices exist that have been previously described; two of which are deflectors and two of which are filters. These devices vary by access, valve access, position, coverage area, sheath size, and pore size (μm) but all ultimately attempt to prevent embolic debris during valve implantation from reaching cerebral circulation.60 A meta-analysis of five randomized clinical trials including 625 patients, combining CLEAN-TAVI, DEFLECT III, EMBOL-X, MISTRAL-C, and SENTINEL studies, and using death or stroke as a composite endpoint, found that neuroprotective devices reduced absolute risk by 4 % for a NNT of approximately 22.61 It is difficult to assess the significance of this meta-analysis as there is extensive heterogeneity in the studies due to various valves, neuroprotective devices, MRI scanners (3T versus 1.5T), patient risk and operator experience.

SentinelTM (Claret Medical)

MISTRAL-C was a hypothesis generating study randomizing TAVR patients to receive the Sentinel Cerebral Protection System (CPS). In this small trial with 32 patients in the device arm and 33 in the control arm, neurocognition was protected in the device arm when assessed by MMSE and MoCA at 5±1 days and there was also a decrease in number and volume of new MRI lesions.62 MoCA and MMSE testing at such an early time is not reflective of long-term consequences. Following MISTRAL-C, the Claret MontageTM Dual Filter System was studied in CLEAN-TAVI where the device was found to reduce the volume and size of new brain lesions on MRI 2 days post-TAVR; however, the stroke rate was similar between the intervention and control groups.14 In the SENTINEL trial, one of the most recent and largest studies to date, Kapadia et al. shed valuable light on the status of cardioembolic protection. In a 1:1:1 ratio, patients were randomized to an imaging control arm, imaging device arm, and a safety arm. DW-MRI did not detect a significant reduction in median total new lesion volume at 2–7 days after TAVR. Importantly, neurologic and neurocognitive function at 30 and 90 days were not significantly different either between the device and control group, although debris was found within filters in 99 % of patients.63 On the basis of the totality of data, the Claret device recently gained FDA approval in the US.

Embrella (Edwards Lifesciences)

PROTAVI-C was a pilot study for the Embrella deflector in which Rodés- Cabau et al. enrolled 54 patients, 12 of whom were controls and 42 receiving the device. Though DW-MRI detected lesions in both groups at 7 days after TAVR, the lesion volume was lower in the group receiving the device. Notably, there were statistically significant mild improvements in MoCA scores at 30 days in the device arm, but the control group also experienced MoCA improvement, albeit statistically insignificant. MMSE scores remained relatively unchanged for both groups from baseline and 30 days post-procedure.64 In a restrospective analysis of Embrella in which 15 patients received the device compared to a historical cohort of 37 patients who did not receive the device, Samim et al. found higher rates of ischaemic lesions in DW-MRI (9.0 versus 5.0, p=0.044) with Embrella, and this device is no longer under clinical evaluation.65

Embol-X (Edwards Lifesciences)

The Embol-X device was developed for use in open-heart surgery and requires direct access to the aorta. Modification of the device allowed it to be successfully used in three initial case reports for technical success and safety.66,67 Mack et al. recently presented results of a study investigating Embol-X, an embolic protection cannula positioned in the ascending aorta, and CardioGard, an intra-aortic filtration device, in SAVR patients. The trial was stopped early due to an interim analysis for futility. Though the devices captured debris in most patients, freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction, the primary endpoint, was not observed.68

TriGuardTM (Keystone Heart Ltd)

DEFLECT I was a prospective, multicentre study aimed to evaluate safety and performance, in which 37 patients were enrolled. Post-procedure DW-MRI demonstrated that the presence of new cerebral ischaemic lesions was similar to historical controls (82 % versus 76 %, p=NS). It was further found that per-patient total lesion volume was 34 % lower when compared to the historical control (TLV 0.2 versus 0.3 cm3). Patients with complete cerebral vessel coverage experienced 89 % lower TLV compared to incomplete cerebral vessel coverage. With a MoCA score of 26 as the threshold for impairment, impaired patients had higher total median lesion volumes (163.18 cm3) compared to unimpaired patients (130.05 cm3).15 DEFLECT III was a multicentre, prospective, randomized study of TriGuard HDH Embolic Deflection Device in 85 patients randomized to TAVR with TriGuard or TAVR alone. Per-treatment population analysis revealed that TriGuard use was associated with greater freedom from new ischaemic brain lesions (26.9 % versus 11.15 %) and fewer neurologic deficits assessed by NIHSS (3.1 % versus 15.4 %). In terms of neurocognition, TriGuard use resulted in improved MoCA scores at discharge and 30 days along with better performance on a delayed memory tasks (p=0.028) at discharge.15 Long-term neurocognitive performance data, with a follow-up >1 year, is not available for any studies. The REFLECT US IDE trial is currently ongoing.

Figure 3: Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Images at Baseline and Following Cerebral Embolism

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Conclusion

TAVR continues to evolve with the expansion of indications in intermediate risk patients. With the imminent inclusion of low-risk patients, cerebral infarction during TAVR may play a larger role in patients who presumably have more to lose. Despite the gravity and widespread prevalence of cerebral embolization during TAVR, there is a lack of clinical data to fully understand the long-term consequences of covert CNS infarction. Cerebral embolization during TAVR is a certainty, yet the uncertainties lay in demonstrating the clinical benefits of cerebral embolic protection and determining the optimal study design for evaluating devices aimed at mitigating risk. These methodological limitations and gaps in evidence linking acutely silent CNS infarction with longer-term neurologic and cognitive effects have led to delays in adopting cerebral protection. While short- and long-term clinical evidence continues to evolve and in the absence of a safety hazard, demonstrating a reduction in the extent of CNS infarction (irrespective of symptoms) should be sufficient burden of proof for cerebral embolic protection.

References
  1. Mylotte D, Osnabrugge RLJ, Windecker S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Europe. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:210–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Kapadia SR, Leon MB, Makkar RR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 385:2485–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1686–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1597–607.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediaterisk patients. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1321–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1609–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Easton JD, Saver JL, Albers GW, et al. Definition and evaluation of transient ischemic attack. Stroke 2009;40:2276–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Sacco RL, Kasner SE, Broderick JP, et al. An updated definition of stroke for the 21st century. A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2013;44:2064–89.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;42:S45–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Lansky AJ, Messé SR, Brickman AM, et al. Proposed standardized neurological endpoints for cardiovascular clinical trials: an academic research consortium initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:679–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187–98.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Reardon MJ, Adams DH, Kleiman NS, et al. 2-year outcomes in patients undergoing surgical or self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:113–21.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Holmes DR, Jr, Nishimura RA, et al. Annual outcomes with transcatheter valve therapy. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;101:789–800.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Haussig S, Mangner N, Dwyer MG, et al. Effect of a cerebral protection device on brain lesions following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis: The CLEAN-TAVI randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;316:592–601.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Lansky AJ, Schofer J, Tchetche D, et al. A prospective randomized evaluation of the TriGuard™ HDH embolic DEFLECTion device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from the DEFLECT III trial. Eur Heart J 2015;36:2070–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Messé SR, Acker MA, Kasner SE, et al. Stroke after aortic valve surgery: results from a prospective cohort. Circulation 2014;129:2253–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Insel TR, Landis SC, Collins FS, et al. The NIH BRAIN Initiative. Science 2013;340:687–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Bernick C, Kuller L, Dulberg C, et al. Silent MRI infarcts and the risk of future stroke: the cardiovascular health study. Neurology 2001;57:1222–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Vermeer SE, Longstreth WT, Koudstaal PJ, et al. Silent brain infarcts: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2007;6:611–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Bosmans J, Bleiziffer S, Gerckens U, et al. The incidence and predictors of early- and mid-term clinically relevant neurological events after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in real-world patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:209–17.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Mastoris I, Schoos MM, Dangas GD, et al. Stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: incidence, risk factors, prognosis, and preventive strategies. Clin Cardiol 2014;37:756–64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Stortecky S, Windecker S. Stroke: an infrequent but devastating complication in cardiovascular interventions. 2012;126:2921–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Tay ELW, Gurvitch R, Wijesinghe N, et al. A high-risk period for cerebrovascular events exists after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:1290–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Miller DC, Blackstone EH, et al. Transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (AVR) aortic valve replacement: Occurrence, hazard, risk factors, and consequences of neurologic events in the PARTNER trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;143:832–43.e13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Ghanem A, Müller A, Nähle CP, et al. Risk and fate of cerebral embolism after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1427–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Himbert D, Descoutures F, Al-Attar N, et al. Results of transfemoral or transapical aortic valve implantation following a uniform assessment in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:303–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Rodés-Cabau J, Webb JG, Cheung A, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at very high or prohibitive surgical risk. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1080–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Lansky AJ, Brown D, Pena C, et al. Neurologic complications of unprotected transcatheter aortic valve implantation (from the Neuro-TAVI Trial). Am J Cardiol 2016;118:1519–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Lansky AJ. The Compelling Saga of Strokes After TAVR (and SAVR): Diagnosis Considerations and Key Messages From NeuroARC. Proceedings of TVT 2017; 2017 June 15; Chicago, IL.
  30. Werner N, Zeymer U, Schneider S, et al. Incidence and clinical impact of stroke complicating transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from the german TAVIRegistry. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2016;88:644–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Daniel K, Wolfe CDA, Busch MA, et al. What are the social consequences of stroke for working-aged adults? A systematic review. Stroke 2009;40:e431–e40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Lai S-M, Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S. Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke 2002;33:1840–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Stolker JM, Spertus JA, Cohen DJ, et al. Rethinking composite end points in clinical trials: insights from patients and trialists. Circulation 2014;130:1254–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. DeCarli C, Massaro J, Harvey D, et al. Measures of brain morphology and infarction in the framingham heart study: establishing what is normal. Neurobiol Aging 2005; 26:491–510.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Longstreth WT, Jr, Diehr P, Manolio TA, et al. Cluster analysis and patterns of findings on cranial magnetic resonance imaging of the elderly: the Cardiovascular Health Study. Arch Neurol 2001;58:635–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Prins ND, van Dijk EJ, den Heijer, et al. Cerebral small-vessel disease and decline in information processing speed, executive function and memory. Brain 2005;128:2034–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. van der Flier WM, van Straaten ECW, Barkhof F, et al. Small vessel disease and general cognitive function in nondisabled elderly. The LADIS Study. Stroke 2005;36: 2116–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Longstreth WT, Arnold AM, Beauchamp NJ, Jr., et al. Incidence, manifestations, and predictors of worsening white matter on serial cranial magnetic resonance imaging in the elderly: the Cardiovascular Health Study. Stroke 2005;36:56–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Longstreth WT, Dulberg C, Manolio TA, et al. Incidence, manifestations, and predictors of brain infarcts defined by serial cranial magnetic resonance imaging in the elderly: the Cardiovascular Health Study. Stroke 2002;33:2376–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Karalis DG, Quinn V, Victor MF, et al. Risk of catheter-related emboli in patients with atherosclerotic debris in the thoracic aorta. Am Heart J 1996;131:1149–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Keeley E, Grines CL. Scraping of aortic debris by coronary guiding catheters. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:1861–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Omran H, Schmidt H, Hackenbroch M, et al. Silent and apparent cerebral embolism after retrograde catheterisation of the aortic valve in valvular stenosis: a prospective, randomised study. Lancet 2003;361:1241–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Schymik G, Würth A, Bramlage P, et al. Long-term results of transapical versus transfemoral TAVI in a real world population of 1000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Van Mieghem NM, Schipper MEI, Ladich E, et al. Histopathology of embolic debris captured during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2013;127:2194–201.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Muttikkal TJ, Wintermark M. MRI patterns of global hypoxicischemic injury in adults. J Neuroradiol 2013;40:164–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Rosamond WD, Folsom AR, Chambless LE, et al. Stroke incidence and survival among middle-aged adults. 9-year follow-up of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort. Stroke 1999;30:736–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Schneider A, Böttiger BW, Popp E, et al. Cerebral resuscitation after cardiocirculatory arrest. Anesth Analg 2009;108:971–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Furlan M, Marchal G, Viader F, et al. Spontaneous neurological recovery after stroke and the fate of the ischemic penumbra. Ann Neurol 1996;40:216–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Olivot J-M, Albers GW. Using advanced MRI techniques for patient selection before acute stroke therapy. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2010;12:230–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Brazzelli M, Sandercock PAG, Chappell FM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for detection of acute vascular lesions in patients presenting with stroke symptoms. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Beaulieu C, de Crespigny A, Tong DC, et al. Longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study of perfusion and diffusion in stroke: evolution of lesion volume and correlation with clinical outcome. Ann Neurol 1999;46:568–78.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Oppenheim C, Stanescu R, Dormont D, et al. False-negative diffusion-weighted MR findings in acute ischemic stroke. Am J Neuroradiology 2000;21:1434–40.
    PubMed
  53. Adams HP, Jr., Davis PH, Leira EC, et al. Baseline NIH stroke scale score strongly predicts outcome after stroke: a report of the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). Neurology 1999;53:126–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Johnston KC, Connors AF, Wagner DP, et al. Predicting outcome in ischemic stroke: external validation of predictive risk models. 2003;34:200–2.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Lyden P, Brott T, Tilley B, et al. Improved reliability of the NIH Stroke Scale using video training. NINDS TPA Stroke Study Group. Stroke 1994;25:2220–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Schlegel D, Kolb SJ, Luciano JM, et al. Utility of the NIH Stroke Scale as a predictor of hospital disposition. Stroke 2003;34:134–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60: I. General Considerations. Scott Med J 1957;2:127–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, et al. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:695–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Freeman M, Barbanti M, Wood DA, et al. Cerebral events and protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;84:885–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Giustino G, Sorrentino S, Mehran R, et al. Cerebral embolic protection during TAVR: A clinical event meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:465–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Van Mieghem NM, Van Gils L, Ahmed H, et al. Filter-based cerebral embolic protection with transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomised MISTRAL-C trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:499–507.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Kapadia SR, Kodali S, Makkar R, et al. Protection against cerebral embolism during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:367–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Rodés-Cabau J, Kahlert P, Neumann FJ, et al. Feasibility and exploratory efficacy evaluation of the Embrella Embolic Deflector System for the prevention of cerebral emboli in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC: Cardiovas Interv 2014;7:1146–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Samim M, Agostoni P, Hendrikse J, et al. Embrella embolic deflection device for cerebral protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149: 799–805.e2.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Etienne P-Y, Papadatos S, Pieters D, et al. Embol-X intraaortic filter and transaortic approach for improved cerebral protection in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 92:e95–e6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Ye J, Webb JG. Embolic capture with updated intra-aortic filter during coronary artery bypass grafting and transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation: first-in-human experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;148:2905–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Mack M. Cerebral Embolic Protection In Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR). JAMA. 2017;318(6): 536–47.
    Crossref
  69. Meller SM, Baumbach A, Brickman AM, Lansky AJ. Clinical implications for diffusion-weighted MRI brain lesions associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;83:502–8.
    Crossref | PubMed