126Clinical outcomes at two years of the Absorb BRS vs. the Xience metallic DES in patients presenting with ACS vs. stable coronary disease - AIDA trial substudy

Methods and results

This analysis includes the 2-year outcomes of all 1845 patients randomized in the AIDA trial subdivided by clinical presentation, a pre-specified subgroup analysis. We compared patients presenting with ACS with those presenting without ACS (ACS versus no-ACS patients). Patients presenting with ACS were further sub-categorized according to the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation at presentation (STE-ACS versus NSTE-ACS patients). Baseline status by clinical presentation was known in all patients, and 842 (45.6%) patients presented with ACS, 456 (25.2%) with STE-ACS and 377 (20.4%) with NSTE-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).

Conclusions

In ACS patients within AIDA, we found no difference in rates of target vessel failure between the Absorb BVS and Xience EES groups. Rates of definite or definite/probable device thrombosis were higher in the Absorb BVS group throughout all clinical presentations. No significant interaction between ACS and no-ACS patients and the occurrence of TVF

Acknowledgement/Funding

The AIDA trial was financially supported by an unrestricted research grant from Abbott Vascular.

P2808Absorb bioresorbable scaffold vs. Xience metallic stent: outcomes in the AIDA trial stratified by SYNTAX score

Aims

Extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) may affect outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this pre-specified subgroup analysis of the AIDA trial we evaluated the impact of SXscore on clinical outcomes

Methods and results

AIDA was a multicenter trial comparing Absorb with Xience. SX score was assessed using the baseline diagnostic angiograms. Each coronary lesion with diameter stenosis ≥50% in vessels ≥1.5 mm was scored. All lesion scores were combined to provide the overall SXscore. The angiographic SXscore calculations were performed by core laboratory analysts who were blinded for clinical events (Cardialysis B.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Clinical outcomes were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXcore ≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). The primary endpoint of this AIDA-trial substudy was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization.

The SXscore was prospectively calculated in 1661 of the 1845 patients (90%). The SXscore ranged from 1 to 57, with a mean±SD of 12.9±8.5 and a median of 11 (Q1-Q3 7–17). In this analysis the SXscore tertiles were defined as SXlow (SXcore ≤8) (n=589), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) (n=538), and SXhigh (>15) (n=534). Patients in the SXhigh group were older, had a more extensive medical history for previous revascularizations (both PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting), and were more likely to present with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

At 2 follow-up the Kaplan-Meier estimates of TVF for the overall AIDA study population was 15.5% in the SXhigh tertile, 10.4% in the SXmid tertile and 4.7% in the SXlow tertile (hazard ratio (HR) 3.53 95% CI 2.28–5.45; P<0.001). The event rate of the primary endpoint of TVF was numerically lower in Absorb when compared to Xience (3.7% versus 5.6%; HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.29 - 1.40; p=0.257) in the SXlow tertile. Patients treated with Absorb and a SXscore >8 had significantly higher event rates as compared to patients with a SXscore ≤8. The rates of TVF in the Absorb BVS population are 15.5% (SXhigh), 11.4% (SXmid), and 3.7% (SXlow), with a significant difference between the SXlow versus SXmid (HR 3.27; 95% CI 1.61–6.68; p=0.001) and SXlow versus SXhigh (HR 4.57; 95% CI 2.29–9.10; p<0.001).

Target Vessel Failure in Absorb BVS

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that implantation of the Absorb in patients with a SXscore ≤8 is associated with numerically lower TVF rates as compared to the Xience drug-eluting stent. The rate of scaffold thrombosis in this SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, is more acceptable than in SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles. Higher SXscore (i.e. >8), both Sxmid and SXhigh, however, appears to be associated with markedly increased risk of device thrombosis, revascularization and myocardial infarction in patients treated with the Absorb.

Acknowledgement/Funding

The AIDA trial was financially supported by an unrestricted research grant from Abbott Vascular