Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of the outcomes of concurrent versus staged TAVR combined with PCI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains uncertain. This research aims to evaluate the results of patients diagnosed with severe aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease who undergo either simultaneous or staged PCI therapy during TAVR procedures.

METHODS

We retrieved all relevant studies from our self-constructed databases up to January 2, 2024, encompassing databases such as Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and PubMed.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included, and the results showed that both surgical modalities had good safety profiles in the early and long-term stages. For early endpoint events, the risk of all-cause mortality and major bleeding within 30 years was similar in the staged TAVR + PCI and the contemporaneous TAVR + PCI ( P > 0.05). Additionally, the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury and pacemaker implantation within 30 days or perioperatively is similar ( P > 0.05). For long-term endpoint events, the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke was similar in the two groups at ≥2 years ( P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing TAVR who required coronary revascularization, no significant differences were observed in the early and long-term outcomes between those receiving concurrent TAVR and PCI versus staged surgery.

Staged Versus Concomitant TAVI and PCI for the Treatment of Coexisting Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular pathologies. Severe coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexists with AS. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been established as alternatives to open surgical interventions. The data on the timing for the treatment of the 2 conditions are scarce and depend on multiple factors. This review compares the clinical outcomes of the concomitant versus staged PCI and TAVI for the treatment of AS and CAD. A systematic, electronic search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to identify relevant articles that compared outcomes of the staged versus concomitant approaches for the TAVI and PCI. Seven studies were included involving 3745 patients. We found no statistically significant difference in primary outcomes such as 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-1.57] and secondary outcomes including length of hospital stay (mean difference = -4.74, 95% CI: -10.96 to 1.48), new-onset renal failure (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.22-3.13), cerebrovascular accidents (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.64-2.57), and intraoperative blood loss (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.32-2.12). New pacemaker insertion was statistically significant in favor of the concomitant approach (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96). This analysis suggests that while the 2 approaches are largely comparable in terms of most outcomes, patients at risk of requiring a pacemaker postprocedure may benefit from a concomitant approach. In conclusion, concomitant TAVI + PCI approach is nonsuperior to the staged approach for the treatment of CAD and AS. This review calls for robust trials in the field to further strengthen the evidence.

Concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) frequently have coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Usually, PCI and TAVI are performed in two separate procedures and current studies are investigating potential benefits regarding the order. However, the two interventions may also be performed simultaneously, thereby limiting the risk associated with repeated vascular access. Data evaluating benefit and harm of concomitant procedures are scarce.

AIMS

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate concomitant PCI (coPCI) in TAVI patients regarding Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) endpoints and long-term mortality.

METHODS

A total of 2233 consecutive TAVI patients from the EVERY-VALVE registry were analyzed according to the VARC-3 endpoint definitions. A total of 274 patients had undergone TAVI and concomitant PCI (coPCI group). They were compared to 226 TAVI patients who had received PCI within 60 days before TAVI in a stepwise approach (swPCI group) and to the remaining 1733 TAVI patients who had not undergone PCI recently (noPCI group).

RESULTS

Overall median age was 81.4 years, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.0%. Patients in the coPCI and in the swPCI group were predominantly male with reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction. Rates of VARC-3 composite endpoints technical success and 30-day device success were comparable between all three groups. Mortality rates at 3 years after TAVI were similar (coPCI, 34.2% vs. swPCI, 31.9% vs. noPCI, 34.0% p = 0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

coPCI during TAVI seems comparable in a retrospective analysis. Compared to a stepwise approach, it has similar rates of composite endpoints technical success and device success as well as long-term mortality.