Observational studyOpen heart2026
Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularisation in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI.
Observational study in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularisation in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI.Open heart · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal revascularisation strategy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains undefined. In particular, the prognostic impact of complete revascularisation (CR) versus incomplete revascularisation (ICR) in this setting is unknown.
aimsTo evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of CR versus ICR in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI.
methodsWe analysed 447 patients from the multicentre, international Revascularization After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (REVIVAL) registry who underwent PCI after TAVI between 2008 and 2023. Patients were classified as CR or ICR according to the presence of residual significant stenosis following PCI. The primary endpoint was the 4-year incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate cumulative event rates, and a weighted Cox regression model employing an entropy balance approach was used to adjust for possible confounders.
resultsICR was achieved in 132 patients (29.5%) and CR in 315 patients (70.5%). The mean follow-up after PCI was 1065±904 days (1213±938 in the ICR group; 1002±883 in the CR group). The crude 4-year incidence of MACE was 35.0% with ICR and 34.7% with CR (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.39, p=0.710). Adjusted analysis confirmed no significant difference (32.5% vs 34.1%; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.64, p=0.971).
conclusionIn this registry, CR after TAVI was common but not associated with improved outcomes compared with ICR. These results support a selective rather than systematic pursuit of CR in elderly, high-risk post-TAVI patients.
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.