Three-Year Clinical Outcomes with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Results from the Randomized ABSORB III Trial Stephen G.

Similar documents
Absorbable Scaffolds the Future of Coronary Interventions?

Bernard Chevalier Institut Jacques Cartier, Massy, France. Patrick W. Serruys Imperial College, London, UK Erasmus University MC, Netherlands

Mid-term results from real-world REPARA registry. Felipe Hernandez, on behalf of the REPARA investigators

SKG Congress, 2015 EVOLVE II. Stephan Windecker

Bernard Chevalier Institut Jacques Cartier, Massy, France. Patrick W. Serruys Imperial College, London, UK Erasmus University MC, Netherlands

Patrick W. Serruys MD. PhD. 1 Bernard Chevalier MD. 2 Yoshinobu Onuma MD. PhD. 3 on behalf of ABSORB II investigators

7-Year Follow-up From a Randomized Trial of Sirolimus-Eluting vs. Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease (RESET)

PROMUS Element Experience In AMC

eluting Stents The SPIRIT Trials

EXCEL vs. NOBLE: How to Treat Left Main Disease in 2017 AATS International Cardiovascular Symposium December 8-9, 2017

Resolute in Bifurcation Lesions: Data from the RESOLUTE Clinical Program

1. Whether the risks of stent thrombosis (ST) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) differ from BMS and DES

Are Asian Patients Different? - Updates Of Biomatrix Experience In Regional Settings: BEACON II (3 Yr F up) &

Update from the Tryton IDE study

TNT Session. The latest clinical evidence in diabetics for the Amphilimus TM eluting polymer-free DES. Rafael Romaguera, MD

Insights from the Magmaris Clinical Data: BIOSOLVE II and BIOSOLVE III 12 Month Follow Up

Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound- Guided vs. Angiography-Guided Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: the IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial

Outcomes of Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffolds with Improved Technique in an Expanded Patient Population: The ABSORB IV Randomized Trial Gregg W.

Safety-outcomes of bioresorbable Everolimus eluting scaffold in (German-Austrian-ABSORB RegIsteR)

Stephen G. Ellis, M.D. Professor of Medicine Director Invasive Services Co-Director Cardiac Gene Bank

BIOFLOW V Comparison of UltraThin Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Polymer with Thin Everolimus- Eluting Durable Polymer Stents

Hyeon-Cheol Gwon, On the behalf of SMART-DATE trial investigators ACC LBCT 2018

Ultimaster clinical results in left main and bifurcations

COMPARE Trial Elvin Kedhi Maasstad Ziekenhuis Rotterdam The Netherlands

Patrick W. Serruys Imperial College, London, UK Erasmus University MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Assessing Myocardium at Risk: Applying SYNTAX

A Large Prospective Randomized Trial of DES vs BMS in Patients with STEMI

Unprotected LM intervention

Bioabsorbable Scaffolding: Technology and Clinical Update. PD Dr. Nicolas Diehm, MD, FESC Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland

FFR-guided Jailed Side Branch Intervention

DESolve NX Trial Clinical and Imaging Results

Element Clinical Program Perseus Late Breaking News and the Platinum Study Design

CYPHER (Polymer-based Sirolimus-eluting DES) New Stent Platforms. Campbell Rogers, M.D. Chief Technology Officer

Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction and Clinical Outcome In Bifurcation Lesion

Fractional Flow Reserve: Review of the latest data

Final Clinical and Angiographic Results From a Nationwide Registry of FIREBIRD Sirolimus- Eluting Stent: Firebird In China (FIC) Registry (PI R. Gao)

BIONICS Trial BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System In Coronary Stenosis Trial

A Polymer-Free Dual Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: Randomized Trial Versus Polymer-Based DES.

BIOFREEDOM: Polymer free Biolimus A9 eluting

Long Lesions: Primary stenting or DCB first? John Laird MD Adventist Heart and Vascular Institute, St. Helena, CA

Single Center Consecutive Registry Of The New Atrium Flyer Coronary Stent System

BIOFLOW-III an all comers registry with a Sirolimus Eluting Stent: Presentation of 1-Year TLF Data in patients with complex lesions

Clinical Study Age Differences in Long Term Outcomes of Coronary Patients Treated with Drug Eluting Stents at a Tertiary Medical Center

Bioresorbable stents for all or for few? Franz-Josef Neumann

Left Main Intervention: Where are we in 2015?

TRIAS HR Pilot Study

Side branch occlusion in 500 ABSORB BVS

3 Year Clinical Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness of FFR- Guided PCI in Stable Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: FAME 2 Trial

TCTAP Upendra Kaul MD,DM,FACC,FSCAI,FAMS,FCSI

2-year outcome of the 3-arm BIO-RESORT randomized trial in all-comer patients treated with contemporary DES

Lessons learned From The National PCI Registry

New Generation Drug- Eluting Stent in Korea

Abstract Background: Methods: Results: Conclusions:

Current Status of BioresorbableScaffolds: Moving Forward or Backwards?

A Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon for Bifurcation Lesions : Early Clinical Observations

2010 Korean Society of Cardiology Spring Scientific Session Korea Japan Joint Symposium. Seoul National University Hospital Cardiovascular Center

The BIO revolution: bioadsorbable stents. Federico Conrotto Cardiologia 2 Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino

TRIAL UPDATE 1. ISAR TRIPLE SECURITY Trial. Dr Deven Patel Royal Free Hospital

Komplexe Koronarintervention heute: Von Syntax zu bioresorbierbaren Stents

C. W. Hamm, B. Cremers, H. Moellmann, S. Möbius-Winkler, U. Zeymer, M. Vrolix, S. Schneider, U. Dietz, M. Böhm, B. Scheller

Dual-therapy stent technology for patients with coronary artery disease Kalkman, D.N.

HREVS: A Randomized Trial of PCI vs CABG vs Hybrid Revascularization in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. Vladimir Ganyukov, MD, PhD

Unprotected Left Main Stenting: Patient Selection and Recent Experience. Alaide Chieffo. S. Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy

The MAIN-COMPARE Study

INDEX 1 INTRODUCTION DEVICE DESCRIPTION CLINICAL PROGRAM FIRST-IN-MAN CLINICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE AMAZONIA SIR STENT...

Biolimus-Eluting Stent With Biodegradable Polymer Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With Durable Polymer: A Randomised, Non-Inferiority Trial

DISRUPT CAD. Todd J. Brinton, MD Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine Adjunct Professor of Bioengineering Stanford University

Results of TROFI II Study. Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD. Imperial college, London, UK On behalf of the PI s and the TROFI II investigators

Drug eluting balloons in CAD

Nobori Clinical Studies Up-dates. Gian Battista DANZI, M.D. Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico University of Milan, Italy

Coronary Stent Choice in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

Post PCI functional testing and imaging: case based lessons from FFR React

Pieter Stella, MD, PhD

2-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice

Intervention: How and to which extent is technology helping us?

Left Main Intervention: Will it become standard of care?

FANTOM II trial: Clinical results from the Fantom Sirolimus-Eluting BRS. Norbert Frey, MD University of Kiel, Germany

NOBORI 2 Trials One Year Clinical Outcomes

REFCTRI/2010/ CTRI Website URL -

Clinical Investigations

Moins de 6 mois d antiagrégants après DES?

Bern-Rotterdam Cohort Study

Count Down to COMBAT

EBC London 2013 Provisional SB stenting strategy with kissing balloon with Absorb

Bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents in PCI

HCS Working Group Seminars Macedonia Pallas Hotel, Friday 21 st February Drug-eluting stents Are they all equal?

DISCOVER Ultimaster with Optical Frequency Domain Imaging

Medtronic Symposium The Complex Bifurcation Patient: new insights into stent selection

ISAR-LEFT MAIN 2 Randomized Trial. Zotarolimus- vs. Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Lesions

ISAR-LEFT MAIN: A Randomized Clinical Trial on Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Lesions

A Novel Low Pressure Self Expanding Nitinol Coronary Stent (vprotect): Device Design and FIH Experience

The Clinical Evaluation of the Medtronic AVE Driver Coronary Stent System

What s New in Antiplatelet Therapy and DES in 2016

Bioresorbable Stents: Innovation or Bust?

Ian T. Meredith AM. MBBS, PhD, FRACP, FCSANZ, FACC, FSCAI, FAPSIC MonashHeart, Monash Medical Centre & Monash University Melbourne, Australia

Bifurcation stenting with BVS

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

eucalimus - First Experience

Quality of Life After Everolimus- Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease:

Transcription:

Three-Year Clinical Outcomes with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Results from the Randomized ABSORB III Trial Stephen G. Ellis MD Dean J. Kereiakes MD and Gregg W. Stone MD for the ABSORB III Investigators NCT01751906

Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest Within the past 12 months, I or my spouse/partner have had a financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with the organization(s) listed below. Affiliation/Financial Relationship Company Consultant and research funding Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic The ABSORB III study is solely funded by Abbott Vascular

Background The everolimus-eluting PLLA-based BVS provides early drug delivery and mechanical support functions similar to metallic DES, followed by complete bioresorption with recovery of vascular structure and function The ABSORB III trial demonstrated non-inferior rates of TLF (cardiac death, TVMI or ID-TLR) at 1 year in 2,008 patients with CAD randomized 2:1 to the BVS vs. CoCr-EES Clinical outcomes through 3 years, the approximate time of complete scaffold bioresorption, has not previously been reported from the ABSORB III trial

PIs: SG Ellis, DJ Kereiakes Study chairman: GW Stone ABSORB III 2,250 pts with up to 2 de novo lesions in different epicardial vessels enrolled, with follow-up for 7-10 years, at up to 200 US and non-us sites 2,008 pts randomized 2:1 vs. (+50 lead-in pts and 200 pt non-randomized angio/ivus/oct/vm FU cohort) RVD: 2.50-3.75 mm; Lesion length: 24 mm Scaffold diameters: 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 mm Scaffold lengths: 12, 18, and 28 mm Follow-up: 30 days, 6 months, then yearly through 7-10 years (blinded after year 3) Primary endpoints: TLF at 1 year (non-inferiority) TLF between 3 and 7-10 years (pooled with ABSORB IV for superiority)

Key Patient Eligibility Criteria >18 years old Evidence of myocardial ischemia (stable/unstable/postinfarction angina or silent ischemia) No elevation of CK-MB 1 or 2 de novo target lesions in up to 2 native coronary arteries (max 1 lesion per artery) Diameter stenosis 50% and <100% with TIMI flow 1 If <70%, abnormal functional test (including FFR 0.80), unstable angina or post-infarct angina RVD 2.50 mm and 3.75 mm (site-determined) Lesion length 24 mm (site-determined)

Patient Characteristics (N=1322) (L=1385) (N=686) (L=713) p-value Age (mean) 63.5 ±10.6 63.6±10.3 0.75 Male 70.7% 70.1% 0.80 Diabetes 31.5% 32.7% 0.60 Unstable angina 26.9 % 24.5% 0.25 Lesion Characteristics Lesion length, mm 12.6 ± 5.4 13.1 ± 5.8 0.048 RVD, mm 2.67 ± 0.45 2.65 ± 0.46 0.36 DAPT Usage Baseline Characteristics DAPT at 1 year 89.9% 90.4% 0.71 DAPT at 3 years 55.8% 53.5% 0.32 There were no major inter-group differences between baseline patient and lesion characteristics Ellis SG et al. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1905-15

Study Flow and Follow-up Randomized 2:1 N=2008 (ITT) ABSORB N=1322 N=686 ABSORB N=1312 ABSORB N=1296 ABSORB N=1276 N=4 lost to follow-up N=6 withdrew consent 1-Year Follow-up 2-Year Follow-up N=6 lost to follow-up N=3 withdrew consent 99.2% Complete 98.7% Complete N=10 lost to follow-up N=6 withdrew consent N=4 lost to follow-up N=2 withdrew consent 98.0% Complete 97.8% Complete N=14 lost to follow-up N=2 withdrew consent N=3 withdrawn by physician/site N=1 other 3-Year Follow-up N=8 lost to follow-up N=1 withdrew consent N=1 withdrawn by physician/site 96.5% Complete 96.4% Complete N=677 N=671 N=661

Target lesion failure (%) Target Lesion Failure 30% 25% 20% HR [95% CI] = 1.31 [0.99, 1.73] p = 0.056 15% 10% 7.8% 11.0% 13.4% 10.4% 5% 6.2% 8.1% No. at Risk: 0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 1322 686 Time Post Procedure (Months) 1189 630 1135 604 1074 577 The 3-year window includes follow-up through 37 months

Target lesion failure (%) Target Lesion Failure: Landmark Analysis 30% 25% 20% 0 1 Year 1 3 Years HR [95% CI] = 1.33 [0.92, 1.92] p=0.13 HR [95% CI] = 1.18 [0.81, 1.72] p=0.39 15% 10% 5% 7.5% 5.7% 4.1% 7.0% 6.0% No. at Risk: 0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 1322 686 Time Post Procedure (Months) 1200 636 3.2% 1215 635 1145 603

Device thrombosis (%) Device Thrombosis 5% 4% 3% HR [95% CI] = 3.12 [1.21, 8.05] p = 0.01 2% 1.5% 1.8% 2.3% 1% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% No. at Risk: 0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 1322 686 Time Post Procedure (Months) 1264 665 1242 647 1197 630 The 3-year window includes follow-up through 37 months

Device thrombosis (%) Device Thrombosis: Landmark Analysis 5% 4% 0 1 Year HR [95% CI] = 2.08 [0.78, 5.55] p=0.13 1 3 Years p=0.02 3% No. at Risk: 2% 1% 0% 1.5% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 1322 686 Time Post Procedure (Months) 1273 668 1256 651 1211 634

3-Year Clinical Events (N=1322) (N=686) HR (95%CI) P value TLF 13.4% (174) 10.4% (70) 1.31 [0.99, 1.73] 0.056 - Cardiac death 1.4% (18) 1.2% (8) 1.17 [0.51, 2.69] 0.71 - TV-MI 8.6% (112) 5.9% (40) 1.47 [1.02, 2.11] 0.03 - ID-TLR 7.2% (92) 5.9% (39) 1.23 [0.85, 1.79] 0.27 Stent thrombosis 2.3% (30) 0.7% (5) 3.12 [1.21, 8.05] 0.01 - Definite 2.2% (28) 0.7% (5) 2.92 [1.13, 7.55] 0.02 - Probable 0.2% (2) 0.0% (0) - 0.31 Note: The 3-year window includes follow-up through 37 months

3-Year Clinical Events (N=1322) (N=686) HR (95%CI) P value All Death 3.1% (40) 3.4% (23) 0.90 [0.54, 1.51] 0.70 - Cardiac Death 1.4% (18) 1.2% (8) 1.17 [0.51, 2.69] 0.71 All MI 10.2% (132) 7.6% (51) 1.36 [0.98, 1.88] 0.061 - TV-MI 8.6% (112) 5.9% (40) 1.47 [1.02, 2.11] 0.03 - Related to device thrombosis - Unrelated to device thrombosis 1.9% (25) 0.6% (4) 3.26 [1.13, 9.35] 0.02 6.8% (88) 5.3% (36) 1.28 [0.87, 1.88] 0.21 Note: The 3-year window includes follow-up through 37 months

3-Year Clinical Events (N=1322) (N=686) HR (95%CI) P value All revascularization 16.4% (210) 12.7% (85) 1.31 [1.02, 1.68] 0.04 - ID-TVR 11.6% (148) 7.7% (51) 1.54 [1.12, 2.11] 0.01 - All TLR 7.3% (93) 5.9% (39) 1.25 [0.86, 1.81] 0.25 - ID-TLR 7.2% (92) 5.9% (39) 1.23 [0.85, 1.79] 0.27 - Related to device thrombosis - Unrelated to device thrombosis 2.2% (28) 0.7% (5) 2.92 [1.13, 7.55] 0.02 5.2% (66) 5.2% (34) 1.01 [0.67, 1.53] 0.96 Note: The 3-year window includes follow-up through 37 months

Target lesion failure (%) Target Lesion Failure: Stratified by Vessel Size 30% RVD <2.25 mm HR [95% CI] = 1.49 [0.88, 2.52] p = 0.14 30% RVD 2.25 mm HR [95% CI] = 1.26 [0.91, 1.75] p = 0.16 25% 20% 18.4% 20.9% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 12.9% 8.3% 11.6% 14.9% 15% 10% 5% 6.6% 5.7% 9.4% 7.3% 11.8% 9.4% No. at Risk: 0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 242 133 Time Post Procedure (Months) 206 119 193 109 182 101 0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 1074 549 Time Post Procedure (Months) 979 509 938 493 888 474

Device thrombosis %) Device Thrombosis: Stratified by Vessel Size 10% RVD <2.25 mm HR [95% CI] = 3.34 [0.75, 14.91] p = 0.09 10% RVD 2.25 mm HR [95% CI] = 3.08 [0.91, 10.47] p = 0.06 8% 8% 6% 4.6% 4.6% 5.0% 6% 4% 4% No. at Risk: 2% 0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 242 133 1.5% Time Post Procedure (Months) 224 128 1.5% 222 120 216 114 1.5% 2% 0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 1074 549 0.8% 0.5% Time Post Procedure (Months) 1036 535 1.2% 0.5% 1016 525 977 514 1.7% 0.5%

Device thrombosis %) Device Thrombosis: Landmark Analysis Stratified by Vessel Size RVD <2.25 mm RVD 2.25 mm 10% 8% 0 1 Year HR [95% CI] = 3.07 [0.68,13.85] p=0.12 1 3 Years p=0.47 10% 8% 0 1 Year HR [95% CI] = 1.53 [0.42,5.67] p=0.52 1 3 Years p=0.03 6% 6% 4% 4.6% 4% No. at Risk: 2% 0% 1.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 242 133 Time Post Procedure (Months) 224 129 229 121 223 115 2% 0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 1074 549 Time Post Procedure (Months) 1044 537 1023 528 984 517

Multivariable Predictors: 0 3 Years Outcome Variable Relative Risk [95% CI] P TLF Pre-procedure RVD <2.25 mm* 1.72 [1.28, 2.32] 0.0005 Prior coronary intervention 1.37 [1.04, 1.81] 0.023 Scaffold thrombosis Pre-procedure RVD <2.25 mm* 2.80 [1.37, 5.71] 0.006 Diabetes mellitus 2.77 [1.36, 5.64] 0.006 *By QCA Variables entered into the TLF multiple model: ACC/AHA lesion class, age (median 64 years), treatment arm, calcification (moderate/severe), prior cardiac interventions, any diabetes, hypercholesterolemia requiring medication, sex, hypertension requiring medication, presentation (unstable angina and recent MI vs. stable ischemic syndrome), bifurcation, target vessel: LAD, target lesion length (mm, median), prior cardiac intervention, pre-procedure MLD (mm, median), number of target lesions, P2Y12 receptor antagonist (loading), pre-procedural RVD (<2.25 mm vs. 2.25 mm), current tobacco use. Variables entered into the ST multiple model: ACC/AHA lesion class, treatment arm, Any diabetes, presentation (unstable angina and recent MI vs. stable ischemic syndrome), target lesion length (mm, median), pre-procedural RVD (<2.25 mm vs. 2.25 mm).

Multivariable Predictors: 0 3 Years Outcome Variable Relative Risk [95% CI] P Prior coronary intervention 2.45 [1.56, 3.85] <0.0001 TLF Diabetes mellitus 1.59 [1.03, 2.47] 0.03 LAD target vessel 1.74 [1.12, 2.72] 0.01 There were no independent predictors of stent thrombosis. Variables entered into the TLF logistic model: ACC/AHA lesion class, age (median 64 years), treatment arm, calcification (moderate/severe), prior cardiac interventions, any diabetes, hypercholesterolemia requiring medication, sex, hypertension requiring medication, presentation (unstable angina and recent MI vs. stable ischemic syndrome), bifurcation, target vessel: LAD, target lesion length (mm, median), prior cardiac intervention, pre-procedure MLD (mm, median), number of target lesions, P2Y12 receptor antagonist (loading), pre-procedural RVD (<2.25 mm vs. 2.25 mm), current tobacco use.

Limitations ABSORB III enrolled patients with stable ischemic heart disease and stabilized ACS, and excluded complex lesions is a first generation device and was used for the first time by most operators within this trial The optimal implantation technique was still evolving during the initiation and enrollment of ABSORB III - Detailed analysis of the impact of PSP on outcomes will be presented in the Featured Clinical Research session Tuesday 10/31 at 12:45 pm in Mile High Ballroom 1A-1B

Summary and Conclusions In the large-scale ABSORB III trial, device-related clinical events (TLF) continued to accrue between 1 and 3 years following PCI with both BVS and EES, although to a slightly greater extent with BVS Three-year rates of composite adverse events were increased with BVS compared to EES, driven by greater rates of scaffold thrombosis and TVMI Longer-term clinical follow-up is necessary to determine whether more normal coronary structure and function after complete scaffold bioresorption will result in a favorable late net safety and efficacy profile of BVS compared to permanent metallic DES

ABSORB III 3-Year Publication JACC 2017:on-line