review · Cardiology in Review
Coronary artery disease coexists in approximately 50% of transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates, yet the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with conservative management or deferral in transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates with coronary artery disease. We searched 4 databases from inception to June 19, 2026. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using random-effects models with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment. Individual patient data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed. Three randomized controlled trials (n = 1156 patients) were included. PCI showed no significant reductions in all-cause death (OR 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.25; I2 = 0%), cardiovascular death (OR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.40-1.29; I2 = 0%), or myocardial infarction (OR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.17-4.18; I2 = 51.8%). Stroke was significantly reduced with PCI (OR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95; I2 = 0%). PCI was associated with a trend toward increased any bleeding (OR 2.26; 95% CI, 0.81-6.29; I2 = 69.8%) and major bleeding (OR 1.70; 95% CI, 0.63-4.60; I2 = 35.9%).
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1097/crd.0000000000001467
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.