TAVI before PCI was noninferior to PCI before TAVI for the primary composite endpoint at 1 year (22.2% vs 24.2%; risk difference -2.0 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority).
RCT (n=986)
Open-label
1:1
Yes
Does a strategy of TAVI before PCI reduce adverse clinical events in patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease compared to PCI before TAVI?
In patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease, a strategy of performing TAVI before PCI is noninferior to PCI before TAVI regarding a 1-year composite clinical endpoint.
Effect estimate: risk difference -2.0 percentage points (95% CI -7.4 to 3.4)
Absolute Event Rate: 22.2% vs 24.2%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 2%
p-value: p=<0.001 for noninferiority
BackgroundApproximately one half of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) have concomitant coronary artery disease. Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is often performed before TAVI, the preferred treatment strategy has not been established. MethodsWe conducted an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 48 centers in Europe. Patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a strategy of either TAVI before PCI (TAVI-first group) or PCI before TAVI (PCI-first group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause; nonfatal myocardial infarction; ischemia-driven revascularization; rehospitalization related to the valve, procedure, or heart failure; or life-threatening, disabling, or major bleeding at 1 year after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 6.6 percentage points, with testing for noninferiority of TAVI first as compared with PCI first. ResultsA total of 986 patients underwent randomization: 498 were assigned to the TAVI-first group and 488 to the PCI-first group. A primary end-point event occurred in 105 patients (22.2%) in the TAVI-first group and in 112 patients (24.2%) in the PCI-first group (risk difference, −2.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −7.4 to 3.4; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Serious adverse events occurred in 264 patients in the TAVI-first group and in 273 patients in the PCI-first group. ConclusionsAmong patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, a strategy of TAVI before PCI was noninferior to a strategy of PCI before TAVI with respect to the primary end point at 1 year. (Funded by University Hospital Zurich and others; TAVI PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04310046.)
“Importantly, this was not because coronary access was impaired after TAVI. Rather, once the valve had been treated, the clinical decision about whether PCI was still necessary sometimes changed.”
ESC 2026 Hot Line; simultaneous NEJM pub; ACC news coverage; debates on optimal sequencing in structural heart Twitter threads.
Stähli et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease (n=986). TAVI before PCI (TAVI-first) vs. PCI before TAVI (PCI-first) was evaluated on Composite of death from any cause; nonfatal myocardial infarction; ischemia-driven revascularization; rehospitalization related to the valve, procedure, or heart failure; or life-threatening, disabling, or major bleeding at 1 year (risk difference -2.0 percentage points, 95% CI -7.4 to 3.4, p=<0.001 for noninferiority). TAVI before PCI was noninferior to PCI before TAVI for the primary composite endpoint at 1 year (22.2% vs 24.2%; risk difference -2.0 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: