ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2026
Routine versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials with trial sequential analysis.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal management of concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains debated. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus deferred PCI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary artery disease undergoing TAVI. Methods: We systematically searched major electronic databases for eligible RCTs. The primary efficacy outcome was spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI); the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis models were fitted using weakly informative prior distributions. Effect estimates are reported as posterior median risk ratios (RR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). The posterior probability of benefit (PPB) for efficacy outcomes or harm (PPH) for safety outcomes was calculated (RR < 1 or RR > 1, respectively). Results: Three RCTs comprising 1156 patients were included. Routine PCI did not demonstrate a convincing posterior probability of benefit for spontaneous MI (posterior median RR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.43-1.73; PPB: 70.2%) or all-cause mortality (posterior median RR 0.91, 95% CrI 0.60-1.43; PPB: 69.6%). However, routine PCI was associated with a reduced risk of urgent revascularization (posterior median RR 0.37, 95% CrI 0.15-0.91; PPB: 98.1%). For safety outcomes, routine PCI was associated with an increased posterior probability of harm for major bleeding (posterior median RR 1.56, 95% CrI 0.91-2.71; PPH: 95.6%) and life-threatening or disabling bleeding (posterior median RR 1.74, 95% CrI 1.00-3.07; PPH: 97.4%). Conclusions: Among patients undergoing TAVI with concomitant CAD, routine PCI did not reduce ischemic events or mortality but increased bleeding complications. These findings suggest that a selective revascularization strategy, rather than a routine one, may be preferable. PROSPERO registration: CRD420261386909.
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.