Artificial Intelligence–Based Fully Automated Quantitative Coronary Angiography vs Optical Coherence Tomography–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI): The FLASH Trial
Authors' conclusion
This study demonstrated the noninferiority of AI-QCA-assisted PCI to OCT-guided PCI in achieving MSA with comparable OCT-defined endpoints.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with significant CAD undergoing PCI395 analysed
- Participants
- 400 patients
- Comparison
- AI-QCA-assisted PCI vs optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PCI
- AI-QCAn = 199
- OCTn = 196reference
- Primary endpoint
- Post-PCI minimal stent area (MSA) assessed by OCT (non-inferiority margin 0.8 mm²)
Methodological detailsnon-inferiority, multicentre (13 centres, South Korea), 1:1 randomisation
- Non-inferiority
- Multicentre (13 centres, South Korea)
- 1:1 randomisation
Primary result
Post-PCI MSA
Difference
−0.16
95% CI −0.59 to 0.28
P < 0.001 for non-inferiority
By group
Between AI-QCA and OCT
difference −0.16 (95% CI −0.59 to 0.28); P for non-inferiority < 0.001
As reported in the abstract
Further findings
Stent underexpansion (OCT-defined)
P = 0.48
Dissection (OCT-defined)
P = 0.42
Untreated reference segment disease (OCT-defined)
P = 0.61
| Outcome | AI-QCA | OCT | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stent malapposition (OCT-defined)Higher with AI-QCA | 13.6% | 5.6 | P = 0.007 |
Original publication
Artificial Intelligence–Based Fully Automated Quantitative Coronary Angiography vs Optical Coherence Tomography–Guided PCI: The FLASH Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 30 October 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →