Randomized Comparison of the Polymer-Free Biolimus-Coated BioFreedom Stent With the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in an All-Comers Population Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT IX Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with increased bleeding risk, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent, a stainless steel drug-coated stent free from polymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SORT OUT IX trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IX), was a large-scale, registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial. The primary end point, major adverse cardiovascular events, was defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not related to any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat. The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events of the BioFreedom stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: Between December 14, 2015 and April 21, 2017, 3151 patients were assigned to treatment with the BioFreedom stent (1572 patients, 1966 lesions) or to the Orsiro stent (1579 patients, 1985 lesions). Five patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration (99.9% follow-up rate). Mean age was 66.3±10.9, diabetes mellitus was seen in 19.3% of patients, and 53% of the patients had acute coronary syndromes. At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patients, who were assigned the BioFreedom stent, and 59 (3.7%), who were assigned the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; Pnoninferiority=0.14). Significantly more patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro stent group (55 [3.5%] vs 20 [1.3%], rate ratio 2.77 [95% CI, 1.66-4.62]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom polymer-free stent did not meet criteria for noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months when compared with the ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers population Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02623140.

Computed tomography versus invasive coronary angiography: design and methods of the pragmatic randomised multicentre DISCHARGE trial.

OBJECTIVES: More than 3.5 million invasive coronary angiographies (ICA) are performed in Europe annually. Approximately 2 million of these invasive procedures might be reduced by noninvasive tests because no coronary intervention is performed. Computed tomography (CT) is the most accurate noninvasive test for detection and exclusion of coronary artery disease (CAD). To investigate the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA, we designed the European pragmatic multicentre DISCHARGE trial funded by the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union (EC-GA 603266). METHODS: In this trial, patients with a low-to-intermediate pretest probability (10-60 %) of suspected CAD and a clinical indication for ICA because of stable chest pain will be randomised in a 1-to-1 ratio to CT or ICA. CT and ICA findings guide subsequent management decisions by the local heart teams according to current evidence and European guidelines. RESULTS: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke as a composite endpoint will be the primary outcome measure. Secondary and other outcomes include cost-effectiveness, radiation exposure, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), socioeconomic status, lifestyle, adverse events related to CT/ICA, and gender differences. CONCLUSIONS: The DISCHARGE trial will assess the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA. KEY POINTS: • Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. • Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the reference standard for detection of CAD. • Noninvasive computed tomography angiography excludes CAD with high sensitivity. • CT may effectively reduce the approximately 2 million negative ICAs in Europe. • DISCHARGE addresses this hypothesis in patients with low-to-intermediate pretest probability for CAD.

Polymer-free biolimus-coated stents versus ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents: two-year outcomes of the randomised SORT OUT IX trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with high bleeding risk, the BioFreedom stent is safer and more effective than a bare metal stent. However, at the one-year follow-up of the SORT OUT IX trial, the BioFreedom stent did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority for target lesion failure (TLF) when compared with the Orsiro stent and had a higher incidence of target lesion revascularisation (TLR). AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the two-year outcomes following coronary implantation of the BioFreedom or the Orsiro stents in all-comer patients. METHODS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) IX trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised clinical trial comparing the BioFreedom and the Orsiro stents. The primary endpoint, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI; not related to other lesions) and TLR. RESULTS: A total of 1,572 patients were randomised to treatment with the BioFreedom stent and 1,579 patients with the Orsiro stent. At two-year follow-up, TLF was 7.8% in the BioFreedom and 6.3% in the Orsiro stent groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.61). Risks of cardiac death, MI and definite stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the groups, whereas more patients in the BioFreedom group had TLR (5.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.26-2.89) attributable to a higher risk of TLR within the first year (3.5% vs 1.3%; RR 2.77, 95% CI: 1.66-4.62). CONCLUSIONS: At two years, there were no significant differences between the BioFreedom and Orsiro stents for TLF. TLR was significantly higher with the BioFreedom stent due to higher risk of TLR within the first year.

Intracoronary compared to intravenous bolus abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients reduces 30-day mortality and target vessel revascularization: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Abciximab is beneficial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). However, the optimal administration route of the initial bolus of abciximab, that is, intravenous (IV) versus intracoronary (IC), has been questioned. Preliminary studies suggest that IC-bolus is superior, probably due to high local concentration. In this study, we assess the short-term efficacy and safety of IC compared to IV bolus of abciximab in patients with STEMI during pPCI. METHODS: In 2006-2008, we randomized 355 STEMI patients who underwent pPCI and had indication for abciximab to either IV or IC bolus followed by a 12-hour IV infusion. Primary end-points at 30 days were target vessel revascularization (TVR), recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) or death, and the composite of the three. Secondary end-points were bleeding complications. RESULTS: The two groups (IV n = 170;IC n = 185) were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. Mortality at 30 days was 5.3% in the IV group compared to only 1.1% in the IC group (P = 0.02). TVR was performed in 9.4% in the IV group compared to 3.8% in the IC group (P = 0.03). No significant difference in MI rates was seen (IV 4.7% vs. IC 2.7%; P = 0.32). We found a significant reduction in the composite end-point (IV 19.4% vs. IC 7.6%; P = 0.001) in favor of IC use. Major bleeding complications were similar (IV 2.4% vs. IC 1.6%; P = 0.62). Neither difference was observed in minor bleedings (IV 14.1% vs. IC 9.7%; P = 0.20). CONCLUSION: IC administration of bolus abciximab in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI reduces 30-day mortality and TVR and tends to reduce MI, compared to IV-bolus.

Intracoronary compared to intravenous abciximab in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention reduces mortality, target vessel revascularization and reinfarction after 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: Administration of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab to patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) improves outcome. Data have suggested that an intracoronary (IC) bolus might be superior to the standard intravenous (IV) administration. We have previously reported reduced short-term mortality and need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) with the IC route. We now present long-term data from our randomized trial on IC versus IV abciximab in pPCI-treated STEMI patients. METHODS: A total of 355 pPCI-treated STEMI patients were randomized to either IC or IV bolus abciximab followed by a 12-hour IV infusion. Patients were followed for 1 year to observe mortality, TVR or myocardial infarction (MI) and the combination of these. RESULTS: The two treatment arms (IV, n = 170; IC, n = 185) were similar with regard to baseline characteristics. Mortality was reduced from 10% in the IV group to 2.7% in the IC group (p = 0.004). TVR and MI were also reduced with IC administration (TVR: 14.1 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.04; MI: 11.8 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.03). Consequently, patients in the IC treatment arm had a relative risk reduction of 55% for the combined endpoint after 1 year (p = 0.002) compared to the IV treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: In pPCI-treated STEMI patients treated with abciximab, IC bolus administration resulted in a significant reduction in mortality, TVR and MI compared to IV bolus administration.