ReviewClinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology2025
Coronary Revascularization in the Era of TAVR: Timing, Strategy, and Outcomes.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.