Stenting Technique and Clinical Outcome in True Bifurcation PCI: Insights From the OCTOBER Trial.
Optimal stenting for true coronary bifurcation lesions is widely debated, with few studies using predefined intracoronary imaging.
The aim of this study was to assess predictors and outcomes associated with a 1 vs a 2-stent technique and whether optical coherence tomographic (OCT) guidance modified the association with clinical outcomes.
This OCTOBER (European Trial on Optical Coherence Tomography Optimized Bifurcation Event Reduction; NCT03171311) post hoc analysis included 1,201 patients with true coronary bifurcation treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Clinical outcomes were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of a 2-stent technique.
Clinical indication, left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation, and side branch (SB) lesion severity were the strongest predictors of 2-stent use (acute clinical presentation: adjusted OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 1.33-2.25]; LMCA: adjusted OR: 2.04 [95% CI: 1.38-3.03]; SB lesion length: adjusted OR: 1.06 per mm [95% CI: 1.03-1.09]; SB diameter stenosis: adjusted OR: 1.04 per 1% [95% CI: 1.03-1.05]). In as-treated analysis, a 1-stent technique was associated with a lower 2-year rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) than a 2-stent technique (9.0% vs 13.9%; adjusted HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.04-2.27), with no interaction with OCT (P for interaction = 0.24). Planned-strategy analyses showed no significant difference in MACE. Among patients treated with a double kissing (DK)-crush technique, angiography-guided DK crush was associated with higher MACE rates compared with OCT-guided DK-crush (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.12-5.24).
Clinical indication, LMCA bifurcation, and SB disease severity predicted 2-stent PCI. MACE did not differ according to planned strategy, whereas actual 2-stent PCI had higher MACE rates, likely reflecting a higher burden of complexity. The lowest event rates were observed with OCT-guided 1-stent PCI.
The aim of this study was to assess predictors and outcomes associated with a 1 vs a 2-stent technique and whether optical coherence tomographic (OCT) guidance modified the association with clinical outcomes.
This OCTOBER (European Trial on Optical Coherence Tomography Optimized Bifurcation Event Reduction; NCT03171311) post hoc analysis included 1,201 patients with true coronary bifurcation treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Clinical outcomes were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of a 2-stent technique.
Clinical indication, left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation, and side branch (SB) lesion severity were the strongest predictors of 2-stent use (acute clinical presentation: adjusted OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 1.33-2.25]; LMCA: adjusted OR: 2.04 [95% CI: 1.38-3.03]; SB lesion length: adjusted OR: 1.06 per mm [95% CI: 1.03-1.09]; SB diameter stenosis: adjusted OR: 1.04 per 1% [95% CI: 1.03-1.05]). In as-treated analysis, a 1-stent technique was associated with a lower 2-year rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) than a 2-stent technique (9.0% vs 13.9%; adjusted HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.04-2.27), with no interaction with OCT (P for interaction = 0.24). Planned-strategy analyses showed no significant difference in MACE. Among patients treated with a double kissing (DK)-crush technique, angiography-guided DK crush was associated with higher MACE rates compared with OCT-guided DK-crush (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.12-5.24).
Clinical indication, LMCA bifurcation, and SB disease severity predicted 2-stent PCI. MACE did not differ according to planned strategy, whereas actual 2-stent PCI had higher MACE rates, likely reflecting a higher burden of complexity. The lowest event rates were observed with OCT-guided 1-stent PCI.
Authors
Andreasen Andreasen, Holck Holck, Neghabat Neghabat, Laanmets Laanmets, Spratt Spratt, Santos-Pardo Santos-Pardo, Jakobsen Jakobsen, Ahtarovski Ahtarovski, Hune Mogensen Hune Mogensen, Bennett Bennett, O'kane O'kane, Cockburn Cockburn, Christiansen Christiansen
View on Pubmed