Key result
Failing to achieve QCA device success links to ~3-point higher 1-year LOCE.
Why the study?
The EAPCI-endorsed algorithm for defining device success after PCI has not been prospectively tested against standardised quantitative coronary angiography by a core lab.
Does standardized assessment of device success using core lab quantitative coronary angiography improve the prediction of 1-year lesion-oriented clinical outcomes compared to operator visual assessment in patients undergoing PCI for three-vessel disease?
RCT (n=1,548)
Randomised to treatment with either Supraflex Cruz or SYNERGY stents
Yes
Does standardized assessment of device success using core lab quantitative coronary angiography improve the prediction of 1-year lesion-oriented clinical outcomes compared to operator visual assessment in patients undergoing PCI for three-vessel disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.1% vs 12%
p-value: p=0.041
Standardised assessment of PCI device success with quantitative coronary angiography reclassifies many operator-adjudicated successes as suboptimal and better identifies lesions at higher risk of 1-year adverse clinical outcomes.
Operator visual assessment overestimates device success; core lab QCA flags higher-risk lesions and leaves standardized adjudication open for trial endpoints.
BACKGROUND: The European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)-endorsed algorithm for defining device success has not yet been prospectively tested against standardised quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) by a core lab. AIMS: We sought to assess whether visually evaluated device success by the operator at the end of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) aligns with the EAPCI-endorsed standardised definition adjudicated by the core lab and to evaluate its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: This prespecified analysis of the Multivessel TALENT trial included 1,548 patients with three-vessel disease randomised to treatment with either Supraflex Cruz or SYNERGY stents. PCI was attempted in 4,052 lesions. The core lab assessed post-PCI residual in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (%DS) by QCA (target <20%) and exploratory delta (Δ) angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (angio-FFR) across the stent(s) (target <0.05). Device success was evaluated using the site-reported data (visual evaluation of in-stent %DS), core lab QCA, core lab angio-FFR, and combined core lab QCA+angio-FFR. The lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE; comprising cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation) was assessed at 1 year. RESULTS: Site-reported device success was 97.4%. Core lab definitions yielded lower rates: 93.8% for Δangio-FFR <0.05, 88.0% for residual %DS <20%, and 83.2% for QCA+angio-FFR (all p<0.001 vs site report after Bonferroni correction). Lesions not meeting QCA-based device success had a higher incidence of LOCE than those meeting the definition (12.0% vs 9.1%; log-rank p=0.041). Device success and LOCE rates did not differ between the two stents for any definition. CONCLUSIONS: In this prespecified lesion-level substudy, standardised assessment using the EAPCI device success algorithm with core lab QCA reclassified a substantial proportion of operator-adjudicated successes and identified lesions at higher 1-year LOCE risk. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04390672).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oshima et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Three-vessel coronary artery disease (n=1,548). Standardised core lab QCA-based device success (residual %DS <20%) vs. Lesions not meeting QCA-based device success was evaluated on Lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE; comprising cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation) at 1 year (p=0.041). Standardised assessment using core lab QCA revealed that lesions not meeting device success had a higher 1-year incidence of LOCE compared to those meeting the definition (12.0% vs 9.1%; P=0.041).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: