EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026
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.
СтатьяСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bujak Kamil, Giacoppo Daniele, Laudani Claudio, Spagnolo Marco, Mazzone Placido Maria, Mauro Maria Sara, Cutore Luigi, Di Leo Giacinto, Finocchiaro Simone, Greco Antonio, Capodanno Davide
Аннотация
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).
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).