Aims: The Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) (n = 2201) showed no benefit for routine percutaneous intervention (PCI) (n = 1101) over medical therapy (MED) (n = 1100) on the combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and class IV heart failure (congestive heart failure) in stable post-MI patients with late occluded infarct-related arteries (IRAs). We evaluated the potential for selective benefit with PCI over MED for patients enrolled early in OAT.
Methods and results: We explored outcomes with PCI over MED in patients randomized to the </=3 calendar days and </=7 calendar days post-MI time windows. Earlier, times to randomization in OAT were associated with higher rates of the combined endpoint (adjusted HR 1.04/day: 99% CI 1.01-1.06; P < 0.001). The 48-month event rates for </=3 days, </=7 days post-MI enrolled patients were similar for PCI vs. MED for the combined and individual endpoints. There was no interaction between time to randomization defined as a continuous (P = 0.55) or categorical variable with a cut-point of 3 days (P = 0.98) or 7 days (P = 0.64) post-MI and treatment effect.
Conclusion: Consistent with overall OAT findings, patients enrolled in the </=3 day and </=7 day post-MI time windows derived no benefit with PCI over MED with no interaction between time to randomization and treatment effect. Our findings do not support routine PCI of the occluded IRA in trial-eligible patients even in the earliest 24-72 h time window.