Coronary artery disease management in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Journal
- EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology (Q1)
- Published
- 19 October 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Kamil Bujak, Daniele Giacoppo, Claudio Laudani, Marco Spagnolo, Placido Maria Mazzone, Maria Sara Mauro, et al.
- PMID
- 42910974
- DOI
- 10.4244/EIJ-D-26-00602
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (paper of the day, 24 October 2026): Randomized-trial meta-analysis of revascularization before TAVI
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal management of coronary artery disease in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains uncertain. AIMS: We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between routine coronary revascularisation and conservative management in patients undergoing TAVI and to assess the relative effectiveness of individual revascularisation strategies by performing a meta-analysis of randomised trials. METHODS: We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with conservative treatment and a network meta-analysis comparing the relative effectiveness of individual strategies, including angiography-guided and physiology-guided PCI. The primary outcome was a study-defined composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included the individual outcomes of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned revascularisation, and major bleeding. RESULTS: Five trials (N=1,644 patients) were included in the systematic review, and four were included in the primary quantitative synthesis (N=1,476). Compared with conservative treatment, routine PCI was associated with lower risks of MACE (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.98) and unplanned revascularisation (RR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.83) and an increased risk of major bleeding (RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.07-2.32). In the network meta-analysis, physiology-guided PCI significantly reduced MACE, stroke, and unplanned revascularisation compared with conservative treatment and ranked highest for all ischaemic outcomes among revascularisation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients referred for TAVI, routine revascularisation reduces the risk of ischaemic outcomes compared with conservative treatment. In this setting, physiology-guided PCI may be associated with the most favourable efficacy profile across available strategies. (PROSPERO: CRD420261330194).
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.