Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) was a 2,201-patient randomized clinical trial comparing routine stent-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy alone in stable myocardial infarction (MI) survivors with persistent infarct-related artery occlusion identified day 3 to 28 post MI. Intent-to-treat analysis showed no difference between strategies with respect to the incidence of new class IV congestive heart failure, MI, or death. The influence of PCI failure, procedural hazard, and crossover on trial results has not been reported. METHODS: Study angiograms were analyzed and adjudicated centrally. Factors associated with PCI failure were examined. Time-to-event analysis using the OAT primary outcome was performed by PCI success status. Landmark analysis (up to and beyond 30 days) partitioned early hazard versus late outcome according to treatment received. RESULTS: Percutaneous coronary intervention was adjudicated successful in >87%. Percutaneous coronary intervention failure rates were similar in US and non-US sites, and did not significantly influence outcome at 60 months (hazard ratio for success vs fail 0.79, 99% CI 0.45-1.40, P = .29). Partitioning of early procedural hazard revealed no late benefit for PCI (hazard ratio for PCI success vs medical therapy alone 1.06, 99% CI 0.75-1.50, P = .66). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention failure and complication rates in the OAT were low. Neither PCI failure nor early procedural hazard substantively influenced the primary trial results.