Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest

1. A Prospective, Multicenter Registry Evaluating New Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Obstructive Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: DELTA II Alaide Chieffo, AkihitoTanaka, Gennaro Giustino, Ieva Briede, Andrejs Erglis, Fadi J. Sawaya, MC.Morice, Roxana Mehran, Joost Daemen, Nicolas V.Mieghem, Hiroyoshi Kawamoto, Satoru Mitomo, Sunao Nakamura, Emanuele Meliga, Fabrizio D’ascenzo, Marco Pavani, Enrico Gerrato, Giulio G.Stefanini, Marco Pisaniello, Davide Capodanno, Corrado Tamburino, Andrea Mangiameli, Didier Tchetche, Templin Christian, Antonio Colombo

2. Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest I, [AlaideChieffo], DO NOT have a financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with one or more organizations that could be perceived as a real or apparent conflict of interest in the context of the subject of this presentation

3. Patients Enrollment in DELTA 2 From 19 Centers 7 Countries Italy n= 1383 France n= 601 • San Raffaele Scientific Institute • EMO-GVM Centro Cuore Columbus • A.O. Ordine Mauriziano Umberto I • Ferrarotto Hospital • University of Catania • University of Turin • S. Giovanni Battista Hospital • A.O.U San Luigi Gonzaga • Infermi Hospital • Humanitas Research Hospital • Institut Hospitalier Jacques Cartier • Clinique Pasteur n= 463 US • Mount-Sinai Medical Center Netherlands n= 428 • Erasmus Medical  Center Thorax center Japan n= 382 • New Tokyo Hospital Latvia n= 719 Switzerland n= 10 • Latvian Centre of Cardiology • Pauls Stradins Clinical UniversityHospital • University Hospital of Zurich

4. DELTA 2 LM PCI with 2 nd generation DES datareceived from19centers (N=4635) Protected N=468 Not 2nd DES N=142 - 1st DES N=77 - BMS N=43 - BVS N=22 No LM stenosis N=23 After the period N=11 Others N=5 DELTA 2 enrollment (N=3986)

5. DELTAII: Endpoints Primary Endpoint • Incidence of death, MI, and CVA at follow-up Secondary Endpoint • Death (overall + cardiac) • Death + MI • MACCE (Death + MI + CVA + TVR) • TVR Same Endpoints/ Definitions as DELTA I

6. Statistical Analysis • Individual patient data was pooled in a single pre-specified structured dataset and analyzed with a single-stage approach • Event rates (with 95% CI) and absolute rate differences at follow-up were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method as time-to-first event • Predictors for endpoint events were estimated with multivariable Cox regression analysis  • In order to account for pre-treatment differences between the DELTA-2 PCI cohort and the historical DELTA-1 CABG cohort a propensity score was generated by means of a logistic regression model. Calibration of the logistic regression model was assessed with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Subsequently, Cox regression models stratified by quintiles of propensity score were performed to estimate differences between treatments • The proportionality assumption of the Cox regression models was tested with the Schoenfeld residual method. If the proportionality assumption was violated, the exposure was modeled as a time-dependent covariate • Multicollinearity across covariates in the multivariable model was assessed with the VIF, with VIF > 10 indicating significant multicollinearity • A level of p < 0.05 was set a statistically significant. Analyses were performed with STATA and SPSS softwares

7. Baseline characteristics (1)

8. Baseline characteristics (2)

9. Procedural characteristics (1)

10. Procedural Characteristics (2)

11. In-hospital Outcomes

12. PrimaryEndpoint(Death+MI+CVA) 12.2% (24M) 10.8% (18M) 8.4% (12M) 5.3% (6M) (Days) No at risk 3512 2969 2392 1619 1289

13. Death Death + MI 11.6% (24M) 10.4% (18M) 9.5% (24M) 8.1% (12M) 8.3% (18M) 6.5% (12M) 5.0% (6M) 4.4% (6M) MACCE TVR 25.3% (24M) 22.4% (18M) 17.4% (12M) 16.7% (24M) 14.8% (18M) 11.2% (12M) 9.8% (6M) 5.4% (6M)

14. MACCE at Follow-up Medianfollow-up:501days %, calculated by Kaplan-Meier Method

15. Multivariate Analysis for Death/MI/CVA

16. Multivariate Analysis for MACCE

17. Multivariate Analysis forTVR

18. Comparison with DELTA1 CABG DELTA II (N=3986) DELTA I CABG (N=901) 501 days (318-1002) Median F-U (IQR) 1524 days (756-1905) Follow-up up to 501 days DELTA II (N=3986) DELTA I CABG (N=901) v.s

19. Baseline differences

20. Primary Endpoint (Death+MI+CVA) DELTA2 vs.DELTA1 CABG 10.3% vs. 11.6%; ARD: -1.3% (-2.4% to -0.4%) Adjusted HR 0.73 (0.58-0.94); p=0.01 DELTA1 CABG DELTA2 PCI (Days) 775 755 744 724 703 No at risk 901 No at risk 3145 2898 2640 2092 1727 3986

21. Death MI 7.8%vs.7.9%;ARD:-0.1% (-1.0% to 0.6%) 2.8%vs.2.9%;ARD:-0.6% (-0.8% to 0.3%) Adjusted HR:0.89 (0.67-1.20); p=0.45 Adjusted HR:0.73 (0.45-1.19); p=0.21 DELTA1 CABG DELTA2 PCI CVA TVR 0.8%vs.2.0%;ARD:-1.2% (-2.0% to -0.8%) 14.2%vs.2.9%;ARD:11.3% (11.0% to 11.3%) Adjusted HR:0.29 (0.15-0.58); p<0.001 Adjusted HR:4.99 (3.24-7.68); p<0.001

22. Conclusions • DELTAIIregistry showed that in a real world scenario (including STEMI, cardiogenic shock and ACS patients and patients that would have been excluded from RCT ) PCI with second generation DES for unprotected LM disease has acceptable occurrence of MACCE at mid term clinical follow-up • The comparison with the historical cohort of patients treated with CABG from DELTA 1 showed that the occurrence of death, MI and CVA is comparable. Indeed there is the advantage of PCI in CVA and CABG in TVR occurrence.