Value of Coronary CT Angiography in Ruling Out Coronary Artery Disease in Elderly Patients Candidates to TAVI

Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) is now indicated as a non-invasive tool for ruling out obstructive coronary artery disease (O-CAD) in patients who are candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) showing low-intermediate pre-test probability of O-CAD. In elderly and comorbid TAVI candidates, the safety and accuracy of cCTA as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for ruling out O-CAD remain to be established. Aim: To assess the feasibility, diagnostic accuracy, and clinical safety of cCTA for ruling out proximal O-CAD in elderly, comorbid, high-risk patients undergoing TAVI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study including all consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI between January 2019 and December 2020. All patients underwent pre-TAVI cCTA. Patients with positive or non-diagnostic cCTA underwent ICA selectively (ICA group). In patients with no-O-CAD, ICA was omitted and proceeded directly to TAVI (no-ICA group). Accordingly, patients were divided into two groups: no-ICA and ICA group. Clinical follow-up was extended up to 5 years, with assessment of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and unplanned revascularization. Results: Among 355 patients enrolled, 210 were included in the study. Among them, 140 (66.7%) had negative cCTA for O-CAD, and ICA was safely omitted in 132 patients (62.8%). cCTA was inconclusive in 43 patients (20.5%) and positive in 27 (12.9%). ICA confirmed O-CAD in 53 of 78 patients (67.9%) and PCI was performed in 35 of 53 (66.0%). The accuracy of cCTA for ruling in O-CAD was low (66.28%). During the follow-up period (1513 ± 508 days), the no-ICA group showed comparable outcomes to the ICA group in terms of periprocedural complications and long-term results—at both 1 and 5 years—for MACEs, heart failure hospitalizations, mortality and unplanned revascularization. Outcomes remain comparable between the two groups after performing matched-pair analyses. Conclusions: Our data show that cCTA may provide a reliable, safe, and effective alternative to ICA for ruling out obstructive CAD in elderly patients undergoing TAVI when image quality is diagnostic. A cCTA-based strategy allows deferral of ICA in most cases without compromising procedural safety or long-term clinical outcomes, enabling a personalized and tailored clinical pathway. Whether advanced CT techniques, such as CT-FFR and photon-counting CT, may help refine patient selection for invasive coronary assessment remains to be demonstrated.