Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025

Insertion, Maintenance, and Removal of the Percutaneous Dual Lumen Cannula Right Ventricular Assist Device
Published on: July 20, 2022
A Referral Center Experience with Cerebral Protection Devices: Challenging Cardiac Thrombus in the EP Lab
Jan Berg1,2, Alberto Preda1, Nicolai Fierro1
1Division of Arrhythmology, San Raffaele Hospital, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Insights
Cerebral protection devices (CPD) are feasible for preventing stroke during left atrial appendage closure or ventricular tachycardia ablation in patients with cardiac thrombus. While no periprocedural strokes occurred, potential vascular complications require consideration.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Neurology
- Interventional Electrophysiology
Background:
- Cerebral protection devices (CPD) are primarily studied in TAVR, with limited data on their use in high-risk patients undergoing left atrial appendage (LAA) closure or ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation.
- Patients undergoing these electrophysiology (EP) procedures may have cardiac thrombus, increasing stroke risk.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the feasibility and safety of routinely using CPD in patients with cardiac thrombus during EP interventions.
- To evaluate periprocedural and long-term outcomes associated with CPD use in this specific patient population.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 30 consecutive patients undergoing LAA closure or VT ablation with CPD placement.
- CPD placement under fluoroscopic guidance using either a capture or deflection device.
- Data collection included procedural reports, discharge letters, and clinical follow-up for safety assessment.
Main Results:
- No periprocedural strokes or TIAs were observed in 30 patients (21 LAA closure, 9 VT ablation).
- CPD-related complications were primarily vascular access issues (pseudoaneurysm, hematoma, venous thrombosis).
- Long-term follow-up showed 1 TIA and 2 non-cardiovascular deaths over a mean of 660 days.
Conclusions:
- Routine CPD placement is feasible for LAA closure and VT ablation in patients with cardiac thrombus.
- While periprocedural stroke prevention seems plausible, larger randomized trials are needed to confirm efficacy.
- Vascular complications associated with CPD use must be carefully managed.
Background:
Cerebral protection devices (CPD) are designed to prevent cardioembolic stroke and most evidence that exists relates to TAVR procedures. There are missing data on the benefits of CPD in patients that are considered high risk for stroke undergoing cardiac procedures like left atrial appendage (LAA) closure or catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) when cardiac thrombus is present.
Purpose:
This work aimed to examine the feasibility and safety of the routine use of CPD in patients with cardiac thrombus undergoing interventions in the electrophysiology (EP) lab of a large referral center.
Methods:
The CPD was placed under fluoroscopic guidance in all procedures in the beginning of the intervention. Two different CPDs were used according to the physician's discretion: (1) a capture device consisting of two filters for the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries placed over a 6F sheath from a radial artery; or (2) a deflection device covering all three supra-aortic vessels placed over an 8F femoral sheath. Retrospective periprocedural and safety data were obtained from procedural reports and discharge letters. Long-term safety data were obtained by clinical follow-up in our institution and telephone consultations.
Results:
We identified 30 consecutive patients in our EP lab who underwent interventions (21 LAA closure, 9 VT ablation) with placement of a CPD due to cardiac thrombus. Mean age was 70 ± 10 years and 73% were male, while mean LVEF was 40 ± 14%. The location of the cardiac thrombus was the LAA in all 21 patients (100%) undergoing LAA-closure, whereas, in the 9 patients undergoing VT ablation, thrombus was present in the LAA in 5 cases (56%), left ventricle (n = 3, 33%) and aortic arch (n = 1, 11%). The capture device was used in 19 out of 30 (63%) and the deflection device in 11 out of 30 cases (37%). There were no periprocedural strokes or transitory ischemic attacks (TIA). CPD-related complications comprised the vascular access and were as follows: two cases of pseudoaneurysm of the femoral artery not requiring surgery (7%), 1 hematoma at the arterial puncture site (3%) and 1 venous thrombosis (3%) resolved by warfarin. At long-term follow-up, 1 TIA and 2 non-cardiovascular deaths occurred, with a mean follow-up time of 660 days.
Conclusions:
Placement of a cerebral protection device prior to LAA closure or VT ablation in patients with cardiac thrombus proved feasible, but possible vascular complications needed to be taken into account. A benefit in periprocedural stroke prevention for these interventions seemed plausible but has yet to be proven in larger and randomized trials.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Cardiac Catheterization III: Left Heart Catheterization
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care

