Evidence Hub

Optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome patients with complex lesions: a subgroup analysis of the randomised OCCUPI Trial

Yong-Joon Lee, Yongcheol Kim, O. Lee, Deok-Kyu Cho, Sang-Hyup Lee, Seung-Jun Lee, Jong-Young Lee, Jin Won Kim et al.

EuroIntervention, 2025

1,604 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The role of optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains inconclusive.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of OCT-guided PCI in ACS patients with complex lesions.

METHODS

The Optical CoherenCe Tomography-gUided Coronary Intervention in Patients With Complex Lesions (OCCUPI) Trial compared PCI with OCT guidance versus angiography guidance in patients who required drug-eluting stent implantation for complex lesions. This post hoc analysis focused on participants presenting with ACS. The primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation).

RESULTS

Out of 1,604 randomised patients, 790 (49.3%) and 814 (50.7%) presented with ACS and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), respectively. Among patients with ACS, the incidence of the primary outcome was 4.9% in the OCT-guided group and 9.5% in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.87; p=0.011). Among patients with CCS, its incidence was 4.4% and 5.4%, respectively (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.43-1.50; p=0.479). No significant interaction between clinical presentation and imaging guidance strategy was observed for the primary outcome (pinteraction=0.273). Among patients with ACS randomised to OCT guidance, the achievement of stent optimisation by OCT…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,604 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free