ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparing TAVR + PCI vs. SAVR + CABG across short- and mid- to long-term horizons in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant CAD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes of Combined TAVR-PCI Versus SAVR-CABG in Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical Outcomes and Factors Associated with MACCE in Chinese Patients Undergoing Single-Hospitalization PCI and Transfemoral TAVR.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- How to Individualize Coronary Assessment and Revascularization in Severe AS Patients Undergoing TAVI in the Era of Lifetime Management?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal revascularization approach for intermediate- and high-risk individuals with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) remains uncertain, particularly regarding the comparative short- and mid- to long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with percutaneous coronary intervention (TAVR + PCI) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting (SAVR + CABG). Methods: A systematic search of major databases was conducted up to March 2025 to identify studies comparing TAVR + PCI vs. SAVR + CABG in this population. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results: Thirteen studies comprising 53,869 patients were analyzed. Compared with SAVR + CABG, TAVR + PCI was associated with lower 30-day risks of stroke, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury, but higher permanent pacemaker implantation. No differences were found in all-cause mortality, major vascular complications, or major bleeding. In mid- to long-term follow-up (≥2 years), the TAVR + PCI group exhibited increased risks of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, with similar stroke rates between strategies. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Conclusions: In intermediate- and high-risk patients with severe AS and concomitant CAD, TAVR + PCI appears to confer short-term safety advantages but may be associated with less favorable mid- to long-term outcomes compared with SAVR + CABG. These findings support individualized revascularization strategies that balance early procedural safety against longer-term risks and highlight the need for further randomized trials with extended follow-up. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251000317, PROSPERO CRD420251000317.
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.