Five-year outcomes of chronic total occlusion treatment with a biolimus A9-eluting biodegradable polymer stent versus a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent in the LEADERS all-comers trial

Background: Few data are available on long-term follow-up of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO). The LEADERS CTO sub-study compared the long-term results in CTO and non-CTO lesions of a Biolimus A9™-eluting stent (BES) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Methods: Among 1,707 patients enrolled in the prospective, multi-center, all-comers LEADERS trial, 81 with CTOs were treated with either a BES (n = 45) or a SES (n = 36). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 5 years, the rate of MACE was numerically higher in the CTO group than in the non-CTO group (29.6% vs. 23.3%; p = 0.173), with a significant increase in the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (21.0 vs. 12.6; p = 0.033), but no difference in stent thrombosis (ST). Patients with CTO receiving a BES demonstrated a lower incidence of MACE (22.2% vs. 38.9%; p = 0.147) with a significant reduction in TLR compared to patients receiving a SES (11.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.0214) with an incidence similar to that observed in the non-CTO group treated with BES (11.6%). Definite ST at 5 years nearly halved in the BES group (4.4% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.478) with no ST in the BES group after the first year (0% vs. 8.3%, p for interaction = 0.009). Conclusions: The use of a BES showed a reduction in MACE, TVR, TLR, and ST over time in the CTO subset with similar outcome as for non-CTO lesions

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention–related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention–related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

An optical coherence tomography study of a biodegradable vs. durable polymer-coated limus-eluting stent: A LEADERS trial sub-study

AimsIncomplete endothelialization has been found to be associated with late stent thrombosis, a rare but devastating phenomenon, more frequent after drug-eluting stent implantation. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) has 10 times greater resolution than intravascular ultrasound and thus appears to be a valuable modality for the assessment of stent strut coverage. The LEADERS trial was a multi-centre, randomized comparison of a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with biodegradable polymer with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) using a durable polymer. This study sought to evaluate tissue coverage and apposition of stents using OCT in a group of patients from the randomized LEADERS trial.Methods and resultsFifty-six consecutive patients underwent OCT during angiographic follow-up at 9 months. OCT images were acquired using a non-occlusive technique at a pullback speed of 3 mm/s. Data were analysed using a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model, which accounted for the correlation of lesion characteristics within patients and implicitly assigned analytical weights to each lesion depending on the number of struts observed per lesion. Primary outcome was the difference in percentage of uncovered struts between BESs and SESs. Twenty patients were included in the analysis in the BES group (29 lesions with 4592 struts) and 26 patients in the SES group (35 lesions with 6476 struts). A total of 83 struts were uncovered in the BES group and 407 out of 6476 struts were uncovered in the SES group [weighted difference-1.4, 95 confidence interval (