Key result
Complete transcatheter management for combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease may carry long-term risks despite short-term benefits compared to surgical methods.
Why the study?
Does complete transcatheter management improve outcomes compared to complete surgical management in patients with combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease?
Does complete transcatheter management improve outcomes compared to complete surgical management in patients with combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease?
This editorial discusses the growing evidence of long-term risks associated with complete transcatheter management for combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, advocating for the consideration of hybrid approaches.
Coronary artery disease and aortic stenosis often occur concomitantly owing to their shared risk factor profile. While standard management of these patients has been through surgical methods including surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting, recent studies have investigated the potential role of complete transcatheter management (i.e., transcatheter aortic valve implantation and percutaneous coronary intervention) for these patients. In this editorial, we discuss the growing body of evidence suggesting long-term risks of transcatheter interventions despite their short-term benefits and also look to the future of hybrid approaches for multifaceted structural heart pathologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dhingra et al. (2022) conducted an editorial in Combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease. Complete transcatheter management (TAVI and PCI) vs. Complete surgical management (SAVR and CABG) was evaluated. Complete transcatheter management for combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease may carry long-term risks despite short-term benefits compared to surgical methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: