P2794Real-world reasons and outcomes for 1-month versus longer dual antiplatelet therapy strategies with a polymer-free biolimus A9-coated stent: insights from the all-comers FREEDOM registry

Abstract

Abstract Background The LEADERS FREE trial established the favourable clinical profile of a new polymer-free biolimus A9-eluting stent (PF-BES) in patients at high bleeding risk when used with a 1-month dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) strategy. Purpose This is the first study evaluating real-world reasons and outcomes for a 1-month versus longer DAPT strategies following PF-BES percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods FREEDOM is an all-comers registry including all patients who underwent PCI with at least one PF-BES at 10 sites, between January 2016 and July 2018. Patients were stratified according to DAPT strategy at discharge (1-month vs >1-month). Baseline features, reasons for PF-BES as reported by the treating physician, and outcomes were compared between groups. Primary outcomes were the 390-day estimates of a patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE: death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target vessel revascularization) and of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE: cardiac death, target vessel-MI or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). Incidence rates were adjusted for clinically relevant factors and outcome predictors. To avoid survival bias, landmark analyses starting from 1-month post-PCI were further carried. Results Following PF-BES PCI, 328 (40.3%) patients were discharged with 1-month DAPT and 485 (59.6%) patients with longer DAPT (median 12 months, IQR 6–12 months). Patients with hypertension or on oral anticoagulation (OAT) were more likely and patients with a previous or an index MI were less likely to be discharged on 1-month DAPT. Patients prescribed with 1-month DAPT were more likely to have had a PF-BES for a LEADERS FREE high bleeding risk criterium than those with longer DAPT (90.2% vs 69.9%, p=0.001). The same association was observed when the reason for PF-BES was a planned major surgery (13.1% vs 6.2%; p=0.001) or OAC to be continued after PCI (38.7% vs 16.5%, p<0.001). Conversely, patients with planned longer DAPT were more likely to have had a PF-BES following the operator preference (2.4% vs 15.5%, p<0.001) or for a reason other than a LEADERS FREE criterium or operator preference (5.2% vs 11.3%, p<0.001). No between-groups differences in the occurrence of the primary outcomes (1-month vs >1-month DAPT: POCE 11.9% vs 13.2%, p=0.747; adj-HR 1.29 [95% CI 0.78–2.10]; DOCE: 4.8% vs 8.1%, p=0.500; adj-HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.50–2.07]) and of bleedings (any: 11.3% vs 9.4%, p=0.472; adj-HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.51–1-50]; BARC 3–5: 4.2% vs 2.2%; p=0.108; adj-HR 1.50 [95% CI 0.58–3.87]) were observed. Landmark analyses showed similar results. Conclusions In a large contemporary all-comers registry, factors reflecting the operator-perceived patient high bleeding risk were the main drivers of a very-short DAPT strategy following PF-BES PCI. We found no interaction of DAPT duration with outcomes following PF-BES PCI, an observation warranting investigation in adequately powered randomised studies.