SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Comparison of different timings of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The combination of selective percutaneous coronary intervention Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science as of April 2025. By employing Bayesian network meta-analysis, with the aid of R software (V4.3.2) and in combination with Stata (V15), the analysis included outcomes such as all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, bleeding and myocardial infarction (MI). Pooled analysis was performed utilizing risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 13 studies involving 304,181 patients were included in the analysis. The research findings showed that the application of TAVI alone significantly reduced the all-cause mortality compared to PCI after TAVI (RR = 0.35, 95% CrI: 0.13, 0.88), and the lowest all-cause mortality rate was observed in the cumulative ranking (SUCRA = 75.89%). Compared with PCI after TAVI (RR = 0.57, 95% CrI: 0.41, 0.79) and TAVIplus PCI (RR = 0.72, 95% CrI: 0.54, 0.97), PCI before TAVI significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality and was found the lowest cardiovascular mortality in the cumulative ranking (SUCRA = 98.37%). In comparison to TAVIplus PCI (RR = 0.44, 95% CrI: 0.27, 0.71), PCI after TAVI significantly reduced the stroke rate and found the lowest stroke rate in the cumulative ranking (SUCRA = 97.21%). The application of TAVI alone significantly reduced the bleeding rate compared to TAVIplusPCI (RR = 0.61, 95% CrI: 0.60, 0.62), and the lowest bleeding rate was observed in the cumulative ranking (SUCRA = 88.14%). Compared with PCI before TAVI (RR = 0.12, 95% CrI: 0.04, 0.29) and TAVI (RR = 0.21, 95% CrI: 0.12, 0.34), TAVIplusPCI significantly reduced the incidence of myocardial infarction and was found the lowest incidence of myocardial infarction in the cumulative ranking (SUCRA = 96.44%). Conclusion: The timing of application of TAVI combined with PCI affects mortality and the incidence of cardiovascular events. Among them, PCI after TAVI may effectively reduce all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke, but the interval between the two procedures remains uncertain. Future studies should investigate the optimal interval between PCI and TAVI to maximize clinical benefits. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO.
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.