Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26864912›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2016

Assessment, treatment, and prognostic implications of CAD in patients undergoing TAVI.

Edward Danson, Peter Hansen, Sayan Sen, Justin Davies, Ian Meredith, Ravinay Bhindi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. A randomised multicentre study of angiography- versus physiologyguided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing TAVI: design and rationale of the FAITAVI trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Timing and Outcomes of PCI in the TAVR Era.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018
    Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Edward DansonSt George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Blackshaw Road, Tooting, London SW17 0QT, UK.
Peter HansenRoyal North Shore Hospital, Reserve Road, St Leonard's, New South Wales 2065, Australia.
Sayan SenNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Dovehouse Street, London SW3 6LY, UK.
Justin DaviesNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Dovehouse Street, London SW3 6LY, UK.
Ian MeredithMonash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia.
Ravinay BhindiRoyal North Shore Hospital, Reserve Road, St Leonard's, New South Wales 2065, Australia.
Imperial College London · GBRoyal North Shore Hospital · AUMonash University · AUSt George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), but its clinical relevance is controversial. At present, the optimal means of defining CAD in patients undergoing TAVI with respect to its prognostic implications and the assessment of myocardial ischaemia is not known. For this reason, the best treatment options are a matter for debate, and current guidelines do not recommend revascularization. As the indications for TAVI expand, the lack of any rigorous means of guiding coronary revascularization might negatively affect the clinical outcomes of future patients. In this Review, we summarize the methods of assessing CAD in TAVI populations, and the data on the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing TAVI. We discuss the putative effects of aortic stenosis on the functional assessment of CAD using pressure or flow wires or by noninvasive stress testing. We propose that a new, well-validated method of assessing CAD as a cause of myocardial ischaemia--which distinguishes it from myocardial infarction, previous revascularization, or non-flow-limiting disease--in patients with severe aortic stenosis is needed to guide revascularization in the current era of TAVI.

Indexed as

Percutaneous Coronary InterventionAortic Valve StenosisCardiac CatheterizationComorbidityCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseDiagnostic ImagingHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansIncidencePredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26864912
OpenAlexW2256381296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.