Coronary disease & ACSSecondary analysis
Focal and Diffuse Coronary Artery Disease Patterns and Placebo-Controlled Angina Relief With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- Secondary analysis of the ORBITA-2 randomised trial
- placebo-controlled
- blinded
- Bayesian proportional odds modeling
Authors' conclusion
In focal disease, PCI resulted in greater placebo-controlled improvement of symptoms compared with diffuse disease.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with stable angina in the ORBITA-2 placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with prerandomization nonhyperemic pressure wire pullback300 target vessel pullbacks
- Participants
- 245 patients
- Comparison
- Placebo-controlled effect of PCI in focal vs diffuse CAD
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Placebo-controlled PCI effect by disease pattern
Focal vs DiffuseOdds ratio (95% CrI)
angina symptom score; Pr[Benefit] > 99.9%
1.80(1.48–2.18)
daily episodes of angina; Pr[Benefit] > 99.9%
1.55(1.26–1.89)
Further findings
Exercise treadmill time, CCS class, EQ-5D-5L, SAQ angina frequency
- Focal disease predicted greater placebo-controlled benefit in exercise treadmill time
- Pr[Interaction] > 99.9%
- Focal disease predicted greater placebo-controlled benefit in CCS class
- Pr[Interaction] = 99.0%
- Focal disease predicted greater placebo-controlled benefit in EQ-5D-5L
- Pr[Interaction] = 95.1%
- Focal disease predicted greater placebo-controlled benefit in SAQ angina frequency
- Pr[Interaction] = 99.5%
Dobutamine stress echocardiography score
- Weaker evidence of interaction between disease pattern and PCI effect
- Pr[Interaction] = 83%
Original publication
Focal and Diffuse Coronary Artery Disease Patterns and Placebo-Controlled Angina Relief With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. Published 22 April 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2026.02.5126
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it