Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2019
Physiological Versus Angiographic Guidance for Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Differential Effect of Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis on Hyperemic and Resting Epicardial Coronary Pressure Indices.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Pooled it
- Invasive Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease in Severe Aortic Stenosis-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Co-Occurrence of Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: Facing Challenges Before, During, and After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: are we there yet?European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Coronary Artery Disease and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Predictors of Diagnostic Inaccuracy of Detecting Coronary Artery Stenosis by Preprocedural CT Angiography in Patients Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Aortic Stenosis: Contemporary Treatment Options for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on changes of coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve.Annals of medicine · 2024Observational
- Prognostic implications of pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement computed tomography-derived coronary plaque characteristics and stenosis severity.European radiology · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- How to address the coronaries in TAVI candidates: can the need for revascularization be safely determined by CT angiography only?European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2024Review
- The role of computed tomography prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: preprocedural planning and simultaneous coronary artery assessment.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Contemporary Functional Coronary Angiography: An Update.Future cardiology · 2024Review
- Invasive Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in the TAVI Era.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Fractional flow reserve use in coronary artery revascularization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.iScience · 2023Article
- Fractional Flow Reserve to Assess Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Long-Term Outcomes.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2023Article
- Unravelling the Fate of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients Undergoing Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Myocardial Perfusion and Coronary Physiology Assessment of Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-Rationale and Design.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Coronary Revascularization: Evidence from Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Unmet Needs in TAVR: Conduction Disturbances and Management of Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation is uncertain. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has never been clinically validated in aortic stenosis. The study aim was to analyze the clinical outcome of FFR-guided revascularization in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods and Results Patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease at coronary angiography were included in this retrospective analysis and divided in 2 groups: angiography guided (122/216; 56.5%) versus FFR-guided revascularization (94/216; 43.5%). Patients were clinically followed up and evaluated for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 2-year follow-up. Most lesions in the FFR group resulted negative according to the conventional 0.80 cutoff value (111/142; 78.2%) and were deferred. The FFR-guided group showed a better major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival compared with the angio-guided group (92.6% versus 82.0%; hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.