Final five-year results of the REMEDEE Registry: Real-world experience with the dual-therapy COMBO stent.

OBJECTIVES: This final report from the REMEDEE Registry assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of the dual-therapy COMBO stent in a large unselected patient population. BACKGROUND: The bio-engineered COMBO stent (OrbusNeich Medical BV, The Netherlands) is a dual-therapy pro-healing stent. Data of long-term safety and efficacy of the this stent is lacking. METHODS: The prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated REMEDEE Registry evaluated clinical outcomes after COMBO stent implantation in daily clinical practice. One thousand patients were enrolled between June 2013 and March 2014. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up data were obtained in 97.2% of patients. At 5-years, target lesion failure (TLF) (composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) was present in 145 patients (14.8%). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 0.9%, with no additional case beyond 3-years of follow-up. In males, 5-year TLF-rate was 15.6 versus 12.6% in females (p = .22). Patients without diabetes mellitus (DM) had TLF-rate of 11.4%, noninsulin-treated DM 22.7% (p = .001) and insulin-treated DM 41.2% (p < .001). Patients presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) had higher incidence of TLF compared to non-ACS (20.4 vs. 13.3%; p = .008), while incidence with STE-ACS was comparable to non-ACS (10.7 vs. 13.3%; p = .43). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous coronary intervention with the dual-therapy COMBO stent in unselected patient population shows low rates of TLF and ST to 5 years. Remarkably, no case of ST was noted beyond 3 years.

Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study.

BACKGROUND: In this prespecified AIDA-trial sub-study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3-year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3-year follow-up.

Sex differences in 1-year clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with COMBO stents: From the COMBO collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The COMBO drug eluting stent is a novel device with luminal endothelial progenitor cell capture technology for rapid homogeneous endothelialization. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined for sex differences in 1-year outcomes after COMBO stenting from the COMBO collaboration, a pooled patient-level dataset from the MASCOT and REMEDEE multicenter registries. The primary endpoint was 1-year target lesion failure (TLF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Secondary outcomes included stent thrombosis (ST). Adjusted outcomes were assessed using Cox regression methods. The study included 861 (23.8%) women and 2,753 (76.2%) men. Women were older with higher prevalence of several comorbidities including diabetes mellitus. Risk of 1-year TLF was similar in both sexes (3.8% vs. 3.9%, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59-1.42, p = .70), without sex differences in the incidence of cardiac death (1.6% vs. 1.5%, p = .78), TV-MI (1.5% vs. 1.1%, p = .32), or CD-TLR (2.0% vs. 2.2%, p = .67). Definite or probable ST occurred in 0.4% women and 1.0% men (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.06-1.11, p = .069). CONCLUSIONS: Despite greater clinical risks at baseline, women treated with COMBO stents had similarly low 1-year TLF and other ischemic outcomes compared to men.

Clinical outcomes at 2 years of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the Xience drug-eluting metallic stent in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome versus stable coronary disease-AIDA trial substudy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.

Three-year clinical outcomes after dual-therapy COMBO stent placement: Insights from the REMEDEE registry.

BACKGROUND: The bio-engineered COMBO stent (OrbusNeich Medical BV, The Netherlands) is a dual-therapy pro-healing stent. This novel technology may allow a shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stenting. We present the first 3 year clinical outcomes of patients treated with COMBO stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated, all-comers REMEDEE Registry evaluates clinical outcomes after COMBO stent treatment. A 1,000 patients were enrolled between June 2013 and March 2014. Patients had a mean of 65 years ±11, 26% of the patients were females and 18% diabetics. More than 50% of patients presented with acute coronary syndrome, 60% of treated lesions were AHA/ACC lesion type B2 or C. Target lesion failure (TLF) at 3 year follow-up occurred in 10.7% of patients (N = 105). The separate components cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization occurred in 4.1%, 2.0%, and 7.1%, respectively of patients. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) was observed in 0.7% of all patients. At 3-year follow-up there were only 73 patients taking DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: At 3-year follow-up, patients treated with COMBO stent in the present large prospective all-comers cohort, continue to show good clinical outcomes. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01874002. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: The COMBO stent is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a luminal anti-CD34-antibody layer, that binds endothelial progenitor cells. These cells can differentiate to endothelial cells and stimulate early endothelialization of the stent. The REMEDEE Registry is the first large, multicenter, prospective, cohort study evaluating the clinical outcomes of 1,000 all-comers patients treated with COMBO stent. Target lesion failure at 3 year follow-up was 10.7% and the rate of definite ST was 0.7%.

Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: final five-year results of the AIDA randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce. AIMS: This report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group. METHODS: AIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT. RESULTS: Up to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p<0.001). DT between 3 and 4 years occurred six times in the Absorb arm versus three times in the XIENCE arm. Between 4 and 5 years, the incidence was three versus two, respectively. Of those three DT in the scaffold group, two occurred in XIENCE EES-treated lesions. The odds ratio of scaffold thrombosis in patients on DAPT compared to off DAPT throughout five-year follow-up was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.15-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The excess risk of the Absorb BVS on late adverse events, in particular device thrombosis, in routine PCI continues up to 4 years and seems to plateau afterwards. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01858077.

1-Year Clinical Outcomes of All Comers Treated With 2 Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of the COMBO and Ultrathin-Strut Orsiro Stents.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine 1-year safety and efficacy after treatment with the COMBO and Orsiro stents. BACKGROUND: The COMBO stainless-steel stent has an anti-CD34+ antibody coating to capture endothelial progenitor cells, thereby promoting faster endothelialization. The Orsiro is an ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium stent, covered by an extremely thin layer of amorphous silicon carbide to minimize ion leakage. Both devices elute sirolimus from biodegradable polymers. METHODS: For this analysis we included European patients from the COMBO collaboration, a patient-level pooling of 2 prospective all-comers registries of COMBO stent implantation (n = 2,775), and all patients randomized to the Orsiro stent (n = 1,169) from the Dutch BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) randomized trial. The main outcome of interest was 1-year target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization evaluated using propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, COMBO patients were older and had more insulin-treated diabetes, renal insufficiency, and other comorbidities. However, Orsiro patients included more current smokers and more acute coronary syndrome presentations. Orsiro patients also received longer stents and had more complex target lesions. After propensity score-matched analysis (n = 862/arm), 1-year target lesion failure occurred in 4.1% of COMBO-treated and 2.7% of Orsiro-treated patients (hazard ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.92 to 2.62; p = 0.10). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0.5% of COMBO-treated and 0.5% of Orsiro-treated patients (p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: A propensity score-matched comparison of all comers treated with the COMBO or Orsiro stent showed no statistically significant differences. Stent thrombosis risk was low and similar between the stents. (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population [BIO-RESORT], NCT01674803; MASCOT-Post Marketing Registry [MASCOT], NCT02183454; Prospective Registry to Assess the Long-term Safety and Performance of the Combo Stent [REMEDEE Reg], NCT01874002).

Impact of Bleeding and Myocardial Infarction on Mortality in All-Comer Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding and myocardial infarction (MI) after percutaneous coronary intervention are independent risk factors for mortality. This study aimed to investigate the association of all-cause mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention with site-reported bleeding and MI, when considered as individual, repeated, or combined events. METHODS: We used the data from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial (GLOBAL LEADERS: A Clinical Study Comparing Two Forms of Anti-Platelet Therapy After Stent Implantation), an all-comers trial of 15 968 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5, whereas MI included periprocedural and spontaneous MIs according to the Third Universal Definition. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, 1061 and 498 patients (6.64% and 3.12%) experienced bleeding and MI, respectively. Patients with a bleeding event had a 10.8% mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 5.97 [95% CI, 4.76-7.49]; P<0.001), and the mortality of patients with an MI was 10.4% (HR, 5.06 [95% CI, 3.72-6.90]; P<0.001), whereas the overall mortality was 2.99%. Albeit reduced over time, MI and even minor BARC 2 bleeding significantly influenced mortality beyond 1 year after adverse events (HR of MI, 2.32 [95% CI, 1.18-4.55]; P=0.014, and HR of BARC 2 bleeding, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.02-3.15]; P=0.044). The mortality rates in patients with repetitive bleeding, repetitive MI, and both bleeding and MI were 16.1%, 19.2%, and 19.0%, and their HRs for 2-year mortality were 8.58 (95% CI, 5.63-13.09; P<0.001), 5.57 (95% CI, 2.53-12.25; P<0.001), and 6.60 (95% CI, 3.44-12.65; P<0.001), respectively. De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy at the time of BARC 3 bleeding was associated with a lower subsequent bleeding or MI rate, compared with continuation of antiplatelet therapy (HR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.11-0.92]; P=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: The fatal impact of bleeding and MI persisted beyond one year. Additional bleeding or MIs resulted in a poorer prognosis. De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy at the time of BARC 3 bleeding could have a major safety merit. These results emphasize the importance of considering the net clinical benefit including ischemic and bleeding events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

Long-Term Performance of the COMBO Dual-Therapy Stent: Results from the REMEDEE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Data of long-term safety and efficacy of the COMBO dual-therapy stent is lacking. REMEDEE Registry evaluated the COMBO stent and showed low clinical event rates up to 3 year. We report the clinical outcomes at 4-year follow-up of this registry. METHODS: The REMEDEE Registry is a prospective, multicenter registry with minimal exclusion criteria, evaluating clinical outcomes after treatment with the COMBO stent. A 1000 patients were enrolled between June 2013 and March 2014. Target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR), at 4-year follow-up was the primary focus of this analysis. RESULTS: Four-year follow-up data were obtained in 97.3% of patients. TLF was present in 117 patients (11.9%). Cardiac death occurred in 45 patients (4.6%), TV-MI was observed in 25 patients (2.6%) and TLR was performed in 73 patients (7.5%). Of the 7.5% TLR at 4 years, 1.5% were beyond 2 years. Definite ST was seen in 7 patients (0.7%) and probable ST in 1 (0.1%). No definite or probable ST occurred between 3 and 4 years follow-up. At 4-year follow-up, 93.1% of patients were free of ischemic symptoms. CONCLUSION: This registry showed excellent 4-year results after COMBO stent placement, with no ST beyond 3 years.

A paradox in sex-specific clinical outcomes after bioresorbable scaffold implantation: 2-year results from the AIDA trial.

BACKGROUND: Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden. This subgroup-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation. METHODS: The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality. RESULTS: Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31-1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98-1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21-3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26-5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11-14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males.

The influence of implantation techniques on lesion oriented-outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES lesions treated in routine clinical practice at complete three year follow-up: AIDA trial QCA substudy.

It has been hypothesized that dedicated optimized Absorb BVS implantation techniques might mitigate the risk of adverse events such as target vessel failure and device thrombosis. In this explorative AIDA trial QCA substudy, we sought to investigate the influence of implantation techniques on lesion-oriented outcomes in both the Absorb BVS and Xience EES arm at complete 3-year follow-up. The current analysis includes 2152 study lesions treated with at least one study device, of which the baseline angiogram was suited for offline QCA analysis, including Dmax analysis. The lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCE) of this analysis was a composite of definite device thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target-vessel myocardial infarction. In Absorb BVS, the Lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE) occurred numerically less in correctly QCA sized vessels when compared to incorrectly sized vessels 8.5% (58/696) versus 11.1% (39/358), p = 0.151. In Xience EES, LOCE had occurred more frequently in incorrectly sized devices according to device diameter/RVD matching; 2.2% (4/187) in correctly sized devices versus 7.1% (63/911) in incorrectly sized devices (p = 0.014). In this AIDA trial QCA substudy, rates of LOCE were significantly lower in Xience EES treated lesions in which devices were correctly sized according to the definitions of device diameter/RVD matching.

The relationship of pre-procedural Dmax based sizing to lesion level outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated patients in the AIDA trial.

Due to expansion limits of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold a meticulous implantation with correct sizing is required. We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the sizing of the device related to the maximal lumen diameter measured by quantitative coronary angiography in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions in the AIDA trial. Sizing of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) was graded according to the definitions of device non-oversize and device oversize on pre-procedural angiography. Lesion-oriented outcomes (LOCE) (device thrombosis, TLR and TVMI) that occurred during 2 years follow-up were related to device non-oversized or oversized status. In the Absorb BVS group, LOCE occurred in 48 (7.4%) lesions in the oversized group and in 32 (8.2%) lesions in the non-oversized group (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.58-1.42; p = 0.681), whereas TLR occurred in 34 (5.3%) lesions and in 23 lesions (5.9%), respectively (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.52-1.51; p = 0.666). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 11 (1.7%) device oversized treated lesions against 16 (4.1%) device non-oversized treated lesions (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19-0.89; p = 0.020). There were no differences in event rates between oversized and non-oversized groups in lesions treated with Xience EES. There was no significant difference in LOCE between oversized and non-oversized treated Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions. Non-oversized Absorb BVS implantation was associated with a higher risk of scaffold thrombosis at complete 2 years follow-up. The majority of very late scaffold thrombosis occurred in properly sized devices.

Stent thrombosis in patients with drug­­eluting stents and bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: the feared complication.

The percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has undergone rapid evolution over the last 40 years and has become one of the most widely performed medical procedures. The introduction of intracoronary stents has improved the safety and efficacy of PCI. However, with the advent of stenting, a new potentially fatal enemy has emerged: stent thrombosis. Ever since, adjunct pharmacological therapy, stent technique, and technology have been adjusted to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis. The aim of the present article is to provide an overview of the past, present, and future aspects of PCI in relation to stent thrombosis.

Incidence, determinants and clinical impact of definite stent thrombosis on mortality in women: From the WIN-DES collaborative patient-level pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Predictors and clinical outcomes of stent thrombosis (ST) in women have not been well investigated. Present study aimed to identify predictors of definite ST and its impact on mortality in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Patient-level data of women enrolled in 26 randomized trials of DES was pooled. The study population was stratified based on the presence or absence of definite ST. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the predictors of definite ST. To analyze the temporal impact of definite ST on mortality Cox regression with ST entered as time-updated covariate was used. RESULTS: Of 11,557 patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation, definite ST occurred in 105 patients (0.9%) over median follow-up of 3years. Independent predictors of ST were age (HR 1.03 per year decrease, 95% CI 1.00-1.05; p=0.041), diabetes mellitus (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.27-3.99; p=0.005), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) at presentation (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.04-3.75; p=0.037) and stent diameter (HR 3.76 per mm decrease, 95% CI 1.66-8.53; p=0.002). Compared to women without ST, the adjusted hazard ratios for mortality in the first 7days, 8-30days, and beyond 30days from ST were 115.81 (95% CI 68.96-194.47); 37.44 (95% CI 17.31-80.98); 3.54 (95% CI 2.20-5.69), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale pooled analysis of women, definite ST was uncommon yet associated with substantial mortality risk, which peaked early and rapidly attenuated over time. Younger age, diabetes, NSTEMI and stent diameter were found to be predictors of ST.