Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with complex lesions (OCCUPI): an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial in South Korea
- Randomised controlled trial
- investigator-initiated
- multicentre
- open-label
- superiority
- 20 hospitals in South Korea
- outcome assessors masked
Authors' conclusion
Among patients who required drug-eluting stent implantation for complex lesions, OCT guidance resulted in a lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year compared with angiography guidance.
Study context
- Population
- Patients aged 19–85 years with one or more complex lesions requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents1,588 (99%) completed 1-year follow-up
- Participants
- 1,604 patients
- Comparison
- Optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided vs angiography-guided PCI
- OCT-guidancen = 803
- Angiography-guidancen = 801reference
- Primary endpoint
- MACE:
- Cardiac death
- MI
- Stent thrombosis
- Ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation
- Follow-up
- 1 year after PCI
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Absolute difference, % (95% CI)
OCT-guided PCI vs Angiography-guided PCI
−2.8(−5.1 to −0.4)
Hazard ratio (95% CI)P value
OCT-guided PCI vs Angiography-guided PCI
0.62(0.41–0.93)
P = 0.023Safety
Stroke, bleeding events, contrast-induced nephropathy
- Not significantly different between the two groups
Original publication
Optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with complex lesions (OCCUPI): an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial in South Korea. Lancet. Published 2 September 2024. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01454-5
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it