Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41341906›Full record

ReviewClinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology2025

Coronary Revascularization in the Era of TAVR: Timing, Strategy, and Outcomes.

Avery Love, Chandler O'Leary, Shahman Shahab

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Avery LoveThe University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1257-4146
Chandler O'LearyThe University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5648-1988
Shahman ShahabThe University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5250-0530

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is prevalent among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), complicating clinical decision-making regarding optimal timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Despite widespread clinical experience, there is ongoing controversy and limited consensus regarding when PCI, before, during, or after TAVR, offers the best risk-benefit balance. Objective: To synthesize and critically evaluate the current evidence on different PCI timing strategies in patients undergoing TAVR and to identify areas of uncertainty and clinical complexity. Review: Randomized trials, including ACTIVATION and NOTION-3, have yielded mixed findings, highlighting a modest reduction in ischemic events with pre-TAVR PCI but increased procedural bleeding risks. Observational registries (REVASC-TAVI and the National Readmissions Database) have similarly shown that pre- and peri-TAVR PCI strategies carry heightened risks of complications without clear long-term mortality benefits. Recent meta-analyses reinforce these findings, indicating that no PCI timing strategy conclusively outperforms others in reducing long-term mortality. Key considerations such as anatomical complexity, frailty, bleeding risk, and valve type significantly influence optimal PCI timing. Conclusion: Current evidence supports a personalized, patient-centered approach to PCI timing in TAVR candidates, emphasizing careful consideration of individual anatomical and clinical factors rather than a standardized timing protocol. Further research exploring advanced risk stratification, imaging modalities, and long-term clinical outcomes is essential to refine current guidelines and practice.

Indexed as

coronary artery diseaseinterventional cardiologyPCI timingrevascularizationTAVR

Identifiers

PMID41341906
PMCPMC12669480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.