Coronary disease & ACSSecondary analysis
Stenting Technique and Clinical Outcome in True Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
- Post hoc analysis of the OCTOBER randomised trial
- as-treated analysis
- multivariable Cox regression
Authors' conclusion
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.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions treated with PCI
- Participants
- 1,201 patients
- Comparison
- 1-stent vs 2-stent technique in true bifurcation PCI
- Primary endpoint
- MACE
- Follow-up
- 2 years
Primary result
MACE (as-treated)
Adjusted hazard ratio
1.53
95% CI 1.04–2.27
By group
2-stent vs 1-stent
adjusted HR 1.53 (95% CI 1.04–2.27)
As reported in the abstract
Further findings
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| MACE with DK-crush: angiography- vs OCT-guided | 2.42 (1.12–5.24) | |
| 0.20.5125Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) by planned strategy
- No significant difference in MACE
Predictors of 2-stent use
- Acute clinical presentation, adjusted OR
- 1.73 (95% CI 1.33-2.25)
- Left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation, adjusted OR
- 2.04 (95% CI 1.38-3.03)
- Side branch (SB) lesion length, adjusted OR per mm
- 1.06 (95% CI 1.03-1.09)
- SB diameter stenosis, adjusted OR per 1%
- 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05)
Original publication
Stenting Technique and Clinical Outcome in True Bifurcation PCI. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 28 September 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2026.06.027
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it