1 / 36

Hyo-Soo Kim, MD/PhD Kyung-Woo Park, Si-Hyuck Kang, Kwang-Soo Cha,

Randomized Comparison of PtCr -EES v s CoCr-ZES in All-Comers Receiving PCI The HOST-ASSURE Randomized Trial. Hyo-Soo Kim, MD/PhD Kyung-Woo Park, Si-Hyuck Kang, Kwang-Soo Cha, Byoung-Eun Park, Jay-Young Rhew, Hui-Kyung Jeon, In-Ho Chae On Behalf of The HOST-ASSURE Trial Investigators

chaela
Télécharger la présentation

Hyo-Soo Kim, MD/PhD Kyung-Woo Park, Si-Hyuck Kang, Kwang-Soo Cha,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Randomized Comparison of PtCr-EES vsCoCr-ZES in All-Comers Receiving PCIThe HOST-ASSURE Randomized Trial Hyo-Soo Kim, MD/PhD Kyung-Woo Park, Si-Hyuck Kang, Kwang-Soo Cha, Byoung-Eun Park, Jay-Young Rhew, Hui-Kyung Jeon, In-Ho Chae On Behalf of The HOST-ASSURE Trial Investigators Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

  2. Disclosures Kim HS reports receiving honorarium for lectures and research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic.

  3. Background • Second-generation DES have improved clinical outcome compared with first-generation DES. • Resolute (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) is a CoCr-based zotarolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-ZES) that showed equivalent outcome to Xience (CoCr-based everolimus-eluting stent). • Promus Element (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) is a PtCr-based EES (PtCr-EES)that has limited clinical data regarding the efficacy and safety. • No study to compare Promus-Element vs. Resolute. • No data on the real picture of longitudinal stent deformation (LSD) in these newer generation DES based on the systemic review of angiographs in the prospectively-collected cohort.

  4. Objectives PtCr-EES (Promus-Element) CoCr-ZES (Resolute) • [Hypothesis] • PtCr-EESis Non-Inferior to CoCr-ZESRegarding Target Lesion Failure at 12 month vs.

  5. Longitudinal Stent Deformation (LSD) : a trade-off of thin strut How often does it happen? Under what conditions does it occur? How severe can it be?

  6. Study Design Prospective, single-blinded, randomized multi-center trial 3,750 All Comers Receiving PCI 40 Centers in Korea Coronary Angiography PtCr-EES arm (N=2,500) CoCr-ZES arm (N=1,250) 2:1 Randomization Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Target Lesion Failure at 12 Months Post-PCI (Intention-To-Treat Analysis)

  7. Enrollment Criteria • Age ≥18 years • Ability to verbally confirm understandings of risks, benefits and treatment alternatives with written informed consent prior to any study-related procedure • Significant lesion (>50% by visual estimate) in any of the coronary arteries, venous or arterial bypass grafts • Evidence of myocardial ischemiaor diameter stenosis > 70% • LVEF <25% or cardiogenic shock • Symptomatic heart failure • Life expectancy <1 year • History of bleeding diathesis, known coagulopathy (including HIT), abnormal CBC (Hb < 10 g/dL or PLT < 100k /μL) or refusal of blood transfusions • GI or GU bleeding ≤ 3 monthsor major surgery ≤ 2 months • Known hypersensitivity/contraindication to heparin, aspirin, clopidogrel, cilostazol, everolimus, zotarolimus, or contrast media • Systemic (intravenous) Everolimus or Zotarolimus use ≤ 12 months • Female of childbearing potential • Actively participating in another drug or device investigational study • Target lesion in coronary artery, venous or arterial bypass graft with diameter of ≥ 2.5 mm and ≤ 4.25 mm • Target lesion amenable for PCI

  8. Study Endpoints • Primary Endpoint: Target Lesion Failure at 12 Month (a composite of cardiac death, TV-related MI, and ischemia-driven TLR) • Secondary Endpoints • Individual components of TLF: cardiac death, TV-related MI, ID-TLR • Patient-oriented composite outcome: all-cause death, all-cause MI, all repeat revascularization • Definite or probable ST (according to ARC definition) • Detection of Longitudinal Stent Deformation (LSD) : by visual estimation of angiograph at index PCI

  9. Statistical Assumption Non-inferiority Design for Primary Endpoint (TLF at 12 Months) • Assumption : TLF • 6.5% in PtCr-EES group • 6.5% in CoCr-ZES group TLF = 4 ~ 8% (COMPARE-II, PLATINUM, SPIRIT-IV, RESOLUTE-AC) • Non-inferiority Margin: Hazard Ratio 1.5 (1-sided) • Type I error (1-sided α): 2.5% • Sampling ratio = 2:1 • Attrition rate: 5% • Primary Analysis: Intention-to-treat analysis • Statistical power >80% (β<0.20)  N=3,750

  10. Trial Coordination Principal Investigator Hyo-Soo Kim Executive Committee Hyo-Soo Kim, In-Ho Chae, KwangSoo Cha, ByoungEun Park, Jay Young Rhew, Hui-Kyung Jeon Data Management Dream CIS Inc. (contract research organization) Random SequenceGeneration Web-based online randomization system Data Safety Monitoring Board Seung-Woo Park, Young-Jin Choi, Kwangil Kim Clinical Event Adjudication Committee Yong-Seok Kim, Sang Min Park,Kyung-Il Park(blinded to treatment allocation)

  11. Participating Centers 40 major hospitals in Republic of Korea

  12. Trial Flow 3,755 PatientsEnrolled and Randomized Allocated to PtCr-EES N=2,503 Allocated to CoCr-ZES N=1,252 17 withdrew 14 voluntarily 3 by physician’s decision 16 were lost to follow up 9 withdrew 7 voluntarily 2 by physician’s decision 7 were lost to follow up Completed 1-Year F/U N=2,470 (98.7%) Completed 1-Year F/U N=1,236 (98.7%)

  13. Baseline Characteristics ACS 65.5%

  14. Baseline Characteristics

  15. Lesion & Procedural Characteristics

  16. QCA Analysis

  17. Target Lesion Failure Composite of C-death, TV-related MI, ischemia-driven TLR HR: 1.00 (0.67-1.50) Non-Inferiority P-value (1-sided)=0.02 Superiority P-value=0.98 PtCr-EES: 2.9% Target Lesion Failure (%) CoCr-ZES: 2.9% Months After Enrollment Patient Number At Risk

  18. Hypothesis Testing Non-inferiority P=0.0247 1.0 P-value Function Curve PredefinedNon-InferiorityMargin Predefined margin: 1.5 0.8 1.4986 : Upper 97.5% CI 0.6 1-sided 80% CI p-value 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.5 90% CI 0.2 95% CI α=0.0247 Hazard Ratio of PtCr-EES vs. CoCr-ZES 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Hazard Ratio of PtCr-EES vs. CoCr-ZES 97.5% CI

  19. Clinical Outcomes

  20. Clinical Events at 12 Months Cardiac Death p=0.997 TV related-MI p=0.822 Target LesionRevascularization p=0.900 Patient-Oriented Composite p=0.187 5.4% 4.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% PtCr-EES N=2,503 CoCr-ZES N=1,252 PtCr-EES N=2,503 CoCr-ZES N=1,252 PtCr-EES N=2,503 CoCr-ZES N=1,252 PtCr-EES N=2,503 CoCr-ZES N=1,252

  21. Stent Thrombosis Late possible ST : Any unexplained death beyond 30 days

  22. Stent Thrombosis Definite ST p=1.000 Probable ST p=0.171 Possible ST p=0.642 Definite or Probable ST p=0.229 0.67% 0.60% 0.50% 0.42% 0.36% 0.25% 0.20% 0.16% PtCr-EES N=2,503 CoCr-ZES N=1,252 PtCr-EES N=2,503 CoCr-ZES N=1,252 PtCr-EES N=2,503 CoCr-ZES N=1,252 PtCr-EES N=2,503 CoCr-ZES N=1,252

  23. Subgroup Analysis 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 Favors PtCr-EES Favors CoCr-ZES

  24. Systematic review of CAG to assess Longitudinal Stent Deformation Enrolled lesions 5,087 lesions (3,755 Patients) PtCr-EES: 3,426 CoCr-ZES: 1,661 Acceptable Angiographic Images (98.5% oflesions) “LSD” 5,010 lesions (3,711 Patients) PtCr-EES: 3,367 CoCr-ZES: 1,643 Bifurcation stenting Overlapping stenting Different Projection angle Nominal SLR measurable (74.3% of lesions) 3,772 lesions (3,016 Patients) PtCr-EES: 2,516 CoCr-ZES: 1,256 • No procedure • after deployment • adjunctive ballooning • IVUS or OCT Post-Deployment SLR measurable (49.2% of lesions) 2,503 lesions (2,118 Patients) PtCr-EES: 1,685 CoCr-ZES: 818

  25. Longitudinal Stent Deformation 3,755 Patients(5,087 lesions) PtCr-EES 2,503 Patients (3,426 lesions) CoCr-ZES 1,252 Patients (1,661 lesions) Acceptable angiographic images PtCr-EES 2,471 Patients (3,367 lesions) CoCr-ZES 1,240 Patients (1,643 lesions) P=0.104 7 (0.21%) 0 (0.00%) PtCr-EES CoCr-ZES Incidence: 2.1 (95% CI: 0.8-4.3) per 1,000 lesions treated with PtCr-EES

  26. Longitudinal Stent Deformation • Features of LSD by visual estimation

  27. Details of 7 Patients with LSD

  28. Stent Length Ratio: index of systemic assessment of stent shortening Promus-Element: 3.0x28 mm Before Deployment: 24.27 mm After Deployment : 23.14 mm Final: 21.05 mm d/t shortening by projection angle d/t shortening by expansion d/t shortening by 1) LSD 2) projection angle difference

  29. Nominal Stent Length Ratio 0.92±0.07 vs. 0.93±0.07 (P<0.001) 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 PtCr-EES (2,516 lesions) CoCr-ZES (1,256 lesions)

  30. Nominal Stent Length Ratio Final Stent Length (mm) 50 40 30 PtCr-EES: 0.92±0.07 (R2=0.906) CoCr-ZES: 0.93±0.07 (R2=0.934) 20 10 (P<0.001) 0 0 20 40 60 Nominal Stent Length (mm)

  31. Post-Deployment Stent Length Ratio 1.00±0.04 vs. 1.00±0.04 (P=0.352) 1.2 1.0 0.8 PtCr-EES (1,685 lesions) CoCr-EES (818 lesions)

  32. Post-Deployment Stent Length Ratio Final Stent Length (mm) 50 40 PtCr-EES: 1.00±0.04 (R2=0.974) 30 CoCr-ZES: 1.00±0.04 (R2=0.984) 20 (P=0.352) 10 Stent Length Immediately After Deployment (mm) 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

  33. Summary : Systematic review of CAG to assess Longitudinal Stent Deformation 5,087 lesions (3,755 Patients) PtCr-EES: 3,426 CoCr-ZES: 1,661 Acceptable Angiographic Images (98.5% oflesions) LSD rare only in Promus Element Nominal SLR (74.3% of lesions) unreliable more reliable no difference between two stents In the general tendency of shortening of stent platform Post-Deployment SLR (49.2% of lesions)

  34. Limitations • Lower event rates than expected • Expected rate of primary endpoint in the comparator: 6.5% • Actual event rate: 2.9% • Question of under-reporting • Trials done in East Asian populations have reported lower event rates. • This study was done with highest degree of scrutiny with periodic monitoring. • F/U loss rate: 1.3%(lower than ENDEAVOR IV, SPIRIT IV, PLATINUM, HORIZONS-AMI) • Longer-term clinical follow-up required • Clinical F/U will be continued up to 3 years • “Eyeball” estimation of longitudinal stent deformation • Better visibility of PtCr alloy may have led to more frequent detection of LSD

  35. Conclusions PtCr-EES was non-inferiorto CoCr-ZES at 1 year regarding TLF. Clinical outcomes were very similar between the two stents. Both stents demonstrated outstanding safety as well as efficacy.: ST <1%; TLF <3% in PCI population of “all-comers” LSD was very rare, observed only in a few cases of PtCr-EES, and was not associated with future adverse clinical events. There was not a serious systematic shortening of either stent platform.

  36. Randomized Comparison of PtCr-EES vs CoCr-ZES in All-Comers Receiving PCI: The HOST-ASSURE Randomized Trial Hyo-Soo Kim, MD/PhD Kyung-Woo Park, Si-Hyuck Kang, Kwang-Soo Cha, Byoung-Eun Park, Jay-Young Rhew, Hui-Kyung Jeon, In-Ho Chae On Behalf of The HOST-ASSURE Trial Investigators Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

More Related