Standardised versus visual assessment of device success after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Asahi Oshima, Pruthvi C Revaiah, Nozomu Kanehama et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This randomized controlled trial evaluated the alignment of operator-reported device success with standardized definitions using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 1,548 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for three-vessel disease. The study found that site-reported device success was 97.4%, while core lab assessments showed lower rates, with QCA+angio-FFR at 83.2%. Lesions not meeting QCA-based success had a higher incidence of adverse outcomes.
Key findings
- Site-reported device success was 97.4%, while core lab QCA+angio-FFR success was 83.2%.
- Lesions not meeting QCA-based device success had a LOCE incidence of 12.0% compared to 9.1% for those that did.
- Core lab definitions of device success were significantly lower than site-reported rates (all p<0.001).
Why it matters
The findings highlight discrepancies between operator assessments and standardized evaluations of device success, which may impact patient outcomes. Understanding these differences is crucial for improving PCI success rates and patient safety.