Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With or Without Percutaneous Coronary Artery Revascularization Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Recent recommendations suggest that in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation and coexistent significant coronary artery disease, the latter should be treated before the index procedure; however, the evidence basis for such an approach remains limited. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to study the clinical outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease who did or did not undergo revascularization prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods and Results: We conducted a search of Medline and Embase to identify studies evaluating patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Random‐effects meta‐analyses with the inverse variance method were used to estimate the rate and risk of adverse outcomes. Nine studies involving 3858 participants were included in the meta‐analysis. Patients who underwent revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention had a higher rate of major vascular complications (odd ratio [OR]: 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33–2.60; P =0.0003) and higher 30‐day mortality (OR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.08–1.87; P =0.01). There were no differences in effect estimates for 30‐day cardiovascular mortality (OR: 1.03; 95% CI, 0.35–2.99), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.14–5.28), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.42–1.88), stroke (OR: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.38–2.97), or 1‐year mortality (OR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71–1.56). The timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (same setting versus a priori) did not negatively influence outcomes. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that revascularization before transcatheter aortic valve implantation confers no clinical advantage with respect to several patient‐important clinical outcomes and may be associated with an increased risk of major vascular complications and 30‐day mortality. In the absence of definitive evidence, careful evaluation of patients on an individual basis is of paramount importance to identify patients who might benefit from elective revascularization.

This publication has 49 references indexed in Scilit: