PofoliaShared via Pofolia

EuroIntervention· 2026Q1

Standardised versus visual assessment of device success after percutaneous coronary intervention

Asahi Oshima, Pruthvi C. Revaiah, Nozomu Kanehama, Adrian Włodarczak et al.

Short summary

A core lab's quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) reclassified 6.8% of operator-judged device successes as failures (88.0% vs 97.4%), identifying lesions with higher 1-year risk of adverse events (12.0% vs 9.1%).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Operator-reported device success via visual assessment was 97.4%.
  • Core lab QCA identified only 88.0% of lesions meeting the <20% residual stenosis target.
  • Lesions failing QCA-based device success had a higher 1-year lesion-oriented composite endpoint rate (12.0% vs 9.1%).
  • A combined QCA and angio-FFR definition yielded the lowest device success rate (83.2%).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

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)

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. EuroIntervention, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Surgery

SurgeryMedicine