Final 5-Year Report of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial Comparing 3 Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comers

BACKGROUND: In a previous trial, higher 5‐year mortality was observed following treatment with biodegradable polymer Orsiro sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES). We assessed 5‐year safety and efficacy of all‐comers as well as patients with diabetes treated with SES or Synergy everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The randomized BIO‐RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug‐Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) trial enrolled 3514 all‐comer patients at 4 Dutch cardiac centers. Patients aged ≥18 years who required percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible. Participants were stratified for diabetes and randomized to treatment with SES, EES, or ZES (1:1:1). The main end point was target vessel failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Five‐year follow‐up was available in 3183 of 3514 (90.6%) patients. The main end point target vessel failure occurred in 142 of 1169 (12.7%) patients treated with SES, 130 of 1172 (11.6%) treated with EES, versus 157 of 1173 (14.1%) treated with ZES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71–1.12], P (log‐rank)=0.31; and HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65–1.04], P (log‐rank)=0.10, respectively). Individual components of target vessel failure showed no significant between‐stent difference. Very late definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar (SES, 1.1%; EES, 0.6%; ZES, 0.9%). In patients with diabetes, target vessel failure did not differ significantly between stent‐groups (SES, 19.8%; EES, 19.2%; versus ZES, 21.1% [P (log‐rank)=0.69 and P (log‐rank)=0.63]). CONCLUSIONS: Orsiro SES, Synergy EES, and Resolute Integrity ZES showed similar 5‐year outcomes of safety and efficacy, including mortality. A prespecified stent comparison in patients with diabetes also revealed no significant differences in 5‐year clinical outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01674803

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

A global registry of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided management during routine care: Study design, baseline characteristics and outcomes of invasive management

Background: The use and clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided revascularization in patients presenting with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in daily clinical practice are uncertain. Objective: To prospectively characterize the frequency of the change in treatment plan when FFR is performed compared to the initial decision based on angiography alone and procedure-related outcomes. Methods: We undertook a prospective, multicenter, multinational, open-label, observational study of coronary physiologic measurements during clinically indicated coronary angiography. The treatment plan, including medical therapy, PCI or CABG, was prospectively recorded before and after performing FFR. Adverse events were pre-defined and prospectively recorded per local investigators (PRESSUREwire; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02935088). Results: Two thousand two hundred and seventeen subjects were enrolled in 70 hospitals across 15 countries between October 2016–February 2018. The mean FFR (all measurements) was 0.84. The treatment plan based on angiography-alone changed in 763/2196 subjects (34.7%) and 872/2931 lesions (29.8%) post-FFR. In the per-patient analysis, the initial treatment plan based on angiography versus the final treatment plan post-FFR were medical management 1,350 (61.5%) versus 1,470 (66.9%) (p =.0017); PCI 717 (32.7%) versus 604 (27.5%) (p =.0004); CABG 119 (5.4%) versus 121 (5.5%) (p =.8951). The frequency of intended revascularization changed from 38.1 to 33.0% per patient (p =.0005) and from 35.5 to 29.6% per lesion (p <.0001) following FFR. Conclusions: On an individual patient basis, use of FFR in everyday practice changes the treatment plan compared to angiography in more than one third of all-comers selected for physiology-guided managements. FFR measurement is safe, providing incremental information to guide revascularization decisions

Diagnostic performance of in-procedure angiography-derived quantitative flow reserve compared to pressure-derived fractional flow reserve: The FAVOR II Europe-Japan study

Background—Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel modality for physiological lesion assessment based on 3-dimensional vessel reconstructions and contrast flow velocity estimates. We evaluated the value of online QFR during routine invasive coronary angiography for procedural feasibility, diagnostic performance, and agreement with pressure-wire–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a gold standard in an international multicenter study. Methods and Results—FAVOR II E-J (Functional Assessment by Various Flow Reconstructions II Europe-Japan) was a prospective, observational, investigator-initiated study. Patients with stable angina pectoris were enrolled in 11 international centers. FFR and online QFR computation were performed in all eligible lesions. An independent core lab performed 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (2D-QCA) analysis of all lesions assessed with QFR and FFR. The primary comparison was sensitivity and specificity of QFR compared with2D-QCAusing FFR as a reference standard.A total of 329patients were enrolled. Paired assessment of FFR, QFR, and2DQCA was available for 317 lesions. Mean FFR, QFR, and percent diameter stenosis were 0.83±0.09, 0.82±10, and 45±10%, respectively. FFR was ≤0.80 in 104 (33%) lesions. Sensitivity and specificity by QFR was significantly higher than by 2D-QCA (sensitivity, 86.5% (78.4–92.4) versus 44.2% (34.5–54.3); P<0.001; specificity, 86.9% (81.6–91.1) versus 76.5% (70.3–82.0); P=0.002). Area under the receiver curve was significantly higher for QFR compared with 2D-QCA (area under the receiver curve, 0.92 [0.89–0.96] versus 0.64 [0.57–0.70]; P<0.001). Median time to QFR was significantly lower than median time to FFR (time to QFR, 5.0 minutes [interquartile range, –6.1] versus time to FFR, 7.0 minutes [interquartile range, 5.0–10.0]; P<0.001). Conclusions—Online computation of QFR in the catheterization laboratory is clinically feasible and is superior to angiographic assessment for evaluation of intermediary coronary artery stenosis using FFR as a reference standard. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02959814

Acute myocardial infarction treated with novel Resolute Onyx and Orsiro stents in the randomized BIONYX trial

Objectives: To compare 2-year outcome following treatment with drug-eluting stents (DES) for acute myocardial infarction (MI) versus non-MI clinical syndromes. In acute MI patients, a stent-level comparison was performed, comparing Resolute Onyx versus Orsiro stents. Background: In patients presenting with acute MI, higher adverse event rates have been reported. So far, no clinical results >1 year have been published of acute MI patients treated with Resolute Onyx. Methods: This post-hoc analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial(NCT02508714) assessed the main outcome target vessel failure (TVF: cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target vessel revascularization) with Kaplan–Meier methods. Results: Of all 2,488 trial participants, acute MI patients (n = 1,275[51.2%]) were significantly younger and had less comorbidities than non-MI patients (n = 1,213[48.8%]). TVF rates were lower in acute MI patients (77/1,275[6.1%] vs. 103/1,213[8.6%], HR:0.70, 95%-CI 0.52–0.94; p log-rank = 0.02), mainly driven by target vessel revascularization (4.1 vs. 6.1%, p log-rank = 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed no independent association of clinical syndrome with TVF (adjusted-HR: 0.81, 95%-CI 0.60–1.10; p =.17). In MI patients treated with Resolute Onyx (n = 626) versus Orsiro (n = 649), there was no difference in TVF (6.2 vs. 6.1%; p log-rank = 0.97) and its components. There was only 1(0.2%) definite-or-probable stent thrombosis in RO-ZES and 8(1.2%) in O-SES (p =.053). Conclusions: Two years after treatment with thin-strut DES in this randomized trial, patients treated for acute MI had lower adverse event rates than non-MI patients. Yet, these findings were mainly attributable to between-group differences in patient and lesion characteristics. In patients who underwent PCI for acute MI, both Resolute Onyx and Orsiro showed favorable and similar 2-year outcomes

Thin, Very Thin, or Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable or Durable Polymer-Coated Drug-Eluting Stents: 3-Year Outcomes of BIO-RESORT

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the 3-year safety and efficacy of treating all-comer patients with 3 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). Background: The BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) (TWENTE III) randomized trial (NCT01674803) found similar 1-year safety and efficacy for the 2 biodegradable-polymer DES (i.e., ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] and very-thin-strut platinum-chromium Synergy everolimus-eluting stent) compared with the durable-polymer thin-strut cobalt-chromium Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Two-year follow-up suggested that the SES might reduce repeat revascularizations beyond 1 year compared with the ZES. Methods: A total of 3,514 all-comer patients were treated at 4 centers for coronary intervention. The main clinical endpoint, target vessel failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel–related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the individual components of target vessel failure and stent thrombosis. Results: Three-year follow-up data were available for 3,393 of 3,514 patients (96.6%). Target vessel failure occurred in 8.5% with SES and 10.0% with ZES (p log rank = 0.22) and in 8.8% with everolimus-eluting stents (vs. ZES, p log rank = 0.32). Rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were similar between stent groups. Landmark analyses found no statistically significant between-stent difference in repeat revascularization between 1 and 3 years. Definite or probable stent thrombosis rates were low (SES, 1.1%; everolimus-eluting stent, 1.1%; ZES, 0.9%) and similar with all 3 DES. Conclusions: Despite substantial differences in stent backbone and polymer coating, all 3 DES showed favorable 3-year safety and efficacy in all comers, without significant between-stent differences. Further follow-up is required to definitely answer the question of whether one stent might improve clinical outcomes at a later stage

Thin Composite-Wire-Strut Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Ultrathin-Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in BIONYX at 2 Years

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess 2-year safety and efficacy of the current-generation thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES), compared with the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers and a pre-specified small-vessel subgroup analysis. Background: The Resolute Onyx ZES is widely used in clinical practice, but no follow-up data beyond 1 year have been published. The randomized BIONYX (Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents) trial (NCT02508714) established the noninferiority of ZES versus SES regarding target vessel failure (TVF) rates. Methods: A total of 2,488 all-comer patients were treated at 7 coronary intervention centers in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. The main endpoint, TVF, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel–related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularization). Two-year follow-up data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Two-year follow-up data were available for 2,460 of 2,488 patients (98.9%). TVF occurred in 93 of 1,243 patients (7.6%) assigned to ZES versus 87 of 1,245 patients (7.1%) assigned to SES (log-rank p = 0.66). There was no significant between-stent difference in individual components of this endpoint. The incidence of definite-or-probable stent thrombosis was low for both treatment arms (0.4% vs. 1.1%; log-rank p = 0.057). In patients stented in small vessels, there was no between-stent difference (TVF 8.2% vs. 8.7% [log-rank p = 0.75], target lesion revascularization 4.0% vs. 4.4% [log-rank p = 0.77]). Conclusions: At 2-year follow-up, the novel thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx ZES showed in all-comers similar safety and efficacy compared with the ultrathin cobalt-chromium-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro SES. The analysis of patients who were treated in small vessels also suggested no advantage for either stent

Thin composite wire strut, durable polymer-coated (Resolute Onyx) versus ultrathin cobalt-chromium strut, bioresorbable polymer-coated (Orsiro) drug-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIONYX): an international, single-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: During the past decade, many patients had zotarolimus-eluting stents implanted, which had circular shape cobalt–chromium struts with limited radiographic visibility. The Resolute Onyx stent was developed to improve visibility while reducing strut thickness, which was achieved by using a novel composite wire with a dense platinum–iridium core and an outer cobalt–chromium layer. We did the first randomised clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of this often-used stent compared with the Orsiro stent, which consists of ultrathin cobalt–chromium struts. Methods: We did an investigator-initiated, assessor-blinded and patient-blinded, randomised non-inferiority trial in an allcomers population at seven independently monitored centres in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and required percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. After guide wire passage with or without predilation, members of the catheterisation laboratory team used web-based computer-generated allocation sequences to randomly assign patients (1:1) to either the Resolute Onyx or the Orsiro stent. Randomisation was stratified by sex and diabetes status. Patients and assessors were masked to allocated stents, but treating clinicians were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation, and was assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 2·5%) on the basis of outcomes adjudicated by an independent event committee. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02508714. Findings: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 23, 2016, 2516 patients were enrolled, 2488 of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (28 withdrawals or screening failures). 1243 participants were assigned to the Resolute Onyx group, and 1245 to the Orsiro group. Overall, 1765 (70·9%) participants presented with acute coronary syndromes and 1275 (51·2%) had myocardial infarctions. 1-year follow-up was available for 2478 (99·6%) patients. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (4·5%) patients in the Resolute Onyx group and 58 (4·7%) in the Orsiro group. Non-inferiority of Resolute Onyx to Orsiro was thus established (absolute risk difference −0·2% [95% CI −1·9 to 1·4]; upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI 1·1%; p non-inferiority=0·0005). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in one (0·1%) participant in the Resolute Onyx group and nine (0·7%) in the Orsiro group (hazard ratio 0·11 [95% CI 0·01–0·87]; p=0·0112). Interpretation: The Resolute Onyx stent was non-inferior to Orsiro for a combined safety and efficacy endpoint at 1-year follow-up in allcomers. The low event rate in both groups suggests that both stents are safe, and the very low rate of stent thrombosis in the Resolute Onyx group warrants further clinical investigation. Funding: Biotronik and Medtronic