Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 12, 2026
Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Outcomes of concomitant PCI and TAVR versus TAVR alone in patients with severe aortic stenosis: A retrospective study
Ravinder Singh Rao1, Akshay Prashanth Giri2, Lakshmi Durga Kumaraguruparan3
1RHL Hospital, Jaipur, India.
Background:
Severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease frequently coexist, yet the optimal management strategy for patients undergoing TAVR with concomitant CAD remains debated. Our study compared safety outcomes and procedural characteristics of concomitant TAVR and PCI versus TAVR alone in a two-center Indian population with severe AS.
Methods:
This retrospective, multi-center, case-control study included 30 consecutive patients undergoing planned concomitant TAVR and PCI and 30 age-, sex-, and valve-type-matched TAVR-alone controls identified from the same study period. PCI was performed for angiographically confirmed proximal coronary stenosis ≥70% or as deemed appropriate according to the study protocol. The primary outcome was VARC-3 defined any bleeding or vascular complication through hospital dischargeSecondary outcomes included in-hospital and 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury, pacemaker implantation, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume.
Results:
Thirty concomitant TAVR-PCI patients and 30 matched TAVR-alone controls were included. The primary outcome occurred in 3 patients (10.0%) versus 2 patients (6.7%; p > 0.99), with a risk difference of 3.3 percentage points (95% CI, -12.7 to 19.7). No major or life-threatening bleeding events occurred. Fluoroscopy time (38.6 ± 23.2 vs. 26.8 ± 10.0 min; p < 0.01) and contrast volume (166.7 ± 65.5 vs. 99.6 ± 37.7 mL; p < 0.001) were higher with concomitant PCI. No in-hospital or 30-day deaths or myocardial infarctions occurred in either group.
Conclusion:
In this small, retrospective, two-center cohort, concomitant PCI at the time of TAVR was not associated with an observed excess of bleeding or vascular complications compared with TAVR alone. These findings are hypothesis-generating and support the feasibility of a concomitant strategy in carefully selected patients at experienced, high-volume centers; they do not establish safety equivalence.
