Back

Should Coronary Revascularization Precede Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Soliman, D.; abdelmalek, J.; Puchongmart, C.; Sodsri, T.; Sivakumar, N.; Sly, Z.

2026-05-20 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.05.15.26353318 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: In severe aortic stenosis patients undergoing TAVR, whether coexisting coronary disease prompts revascularization and its optimal timing remain unclear. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PCI before TAVR compared to deferred PCI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs comparing PCI before TAVR versus no PCI. HRs with 95% CIs were pooled using random-effects models. Results: Three RCTs (ACTIVATION, NOTION 3, PRO-TAVI) enrolling 1,156 patients (579 PCI, 577 no PCI) were included. Routine PCI before TAVR did not reduce all-cause mortality (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17; p=0.38) or cardiovascular death (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.19; p=0.23). PCI significantly reduced any revascularization (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.86; p=0.029), and urgent revascularization (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.87; p=0.025). MI was not significantly reduced with PCI (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.59; p = 0.59). Stroke showed a borderline trend favoring PCI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.04; p=0.073). PCI significantly increased any bleeding (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.0; p=0.002) and major bleeding (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.31, p=0.027). Neither AKI nor rehospitalization differed significantly between groups. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of mortality, stroke, and bleeding estimates. Conclusions: Routine PCI before TAVR does not reduce mortality. It lowers urgent revascularization and trends toward less stroke but nearly doubles bleeding. Findings support selective, individualized PCI rather than routine revascularization before TAVR.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.0%
2
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.4%
3
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.7%
4
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
5
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.7%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.9%
8
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
9
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.0%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
11
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
12
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.3%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.8%
14
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
15
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.6%
17
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
18
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
19
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
20
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
Cardiovascular Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
22
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
24
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%