N/A
N=222
EXPERT CTO: Evaluation of the XIENCE PRIME™ LL and XIENCE Nano™ Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent Coronary Stents, Performance, and Technique in Chronic Total Occlusions
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) · Chronic Total Occlusion (CTO)
Bottom Line
View on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01435031 ↗Enrolled (actual)
222
Serious AEs
41.4%
Results posted
Nov 2014
Primary outcome: Primary: Number of Participants With Stent-related: Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) (Per ITT Set) — 39 Participants
Study Design & Population
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- N/A
- Interventions
- CTO Treatment Device (Device)
- Age
- Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
- Sex
- All
- Sponsor
- Abbott Medical Devices
- Primary completion
- Feb 2014
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY Number of Participants With Stent-related: Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) (Per ITT Set) |
39 | — |
| PRIMARY Number of Participants With Stent-related: Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) (Per Protocol Set) |
15 | — |
| PRIMARY Percentage of Participants With Guide Wire-related: Successful Recanalization of the Chronic Total Occlusion (CTO) (MACE Includes Per ARC Definition of MI) |
79.0; 89.9; 89.1 | — |
| PRIMARY Percentage of Participants With Guide Wire-related: Successful Recanalization of the CTO (MACE Includes Per Protocol Definition of MI) |
87.7; 89.9; 97.8 | — |
| PRIMARY Percentage of Participants With Angioplasty Predilatation-related: Successful Predilatation of the CTO |
93.8 | — |
| SECONDARY Minimum Lumen Diameter (MLD): Pre-procedure |
0.01 | — |
| SECONDARY Minimum Lumen Diameter (MLD): Post-procedure |
1.85; 2.32 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Change in Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Flow Grade: Pre-procedure |
95.9; 3.6; 0.0; 0.5 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Change in TIMI Flow Grade: Post-procedure |
0.5; 0.0; 1.8; 97.7 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Device Success |
100 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedure Success |
96.4; 89.6 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Antegrade Crossing |
97.9 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Subintimal Tracking and Re-entry (STAR) Technique |
100 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Knuckle Wire |
100.0 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Primary Retrograde Wire Crossing |
91.7 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Controlled Antegrade-Retrograde Technique (CART) |
100 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Reverse CART |
77.8 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Kissing Wire Technique |
100 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Sub Intimal Technique |
100.0 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Procedural Success With Multiple Crossing Techniques |
80.0 | — |
| SECONDARY Resource Utilization: Procedural Time |
79.88 | — |
| SECONDARY Resource Utilization: Fluoroscopic Time |
33.61 | — |
| SECONDARY Resource Utilization: Contrast Volume |
259.00 | — |
| SECONDARY Percentage of Participants With Clinically Significant Perforation |
0.0; 0; 0.0 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) |
44 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) |
44 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) |
44 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) |
44 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) |
44 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) |
44 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Death |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Death |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Death |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Death |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Death |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Death |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Cardiac Death |
10 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Cardiac Death |
10 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Cardiac Death |
10 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Cardiac Death |
10 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Cardiac Death |
10 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants Experiencing Cardiac Death |
10 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Myocardial Infarction Q Wave and Non-Q Wave (MI) |
37 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Myocardial Infarction Q Wave and Non-Q Wave (MI) |
37 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Myocardial Infarction Q Wave and Non-Q Wave (MI) |
37 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Myocardial Infarction Q Wave and Non-Q Wave (MI) |
37 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Myocardial Infarction Q Wave and Non-Q Wave (MI) |
37 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Myocardial Infarction Q Wave and Non-Q Wave (MI) |
37 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel-related MI |
28 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel-related MI |
28 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel-related MI |
28 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel-related MI |
28 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel-related MI |
28 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel-related MI |
28 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) |
21 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) |
21 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) |
21 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) |
21 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) |
21 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) |
21 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Clinically-Driven Target Lesion Revascularization (Clinically-Driven TLR) |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Clinically-Driven Target Lesion Revascularization (Clinically-Driven TLR) |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Driven Target Lesion Revascularization (Clinically-Driven TLR) |
13 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Clinically-Driven Target Lesion Revascularization (Clinically-Driven TLR) |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Clinically-Driven Target Lesion Revascularization (Clinically-Driven TLR) |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Clinically-Driven Target Lesion Revascularization (Clinically-Driven TLR) |
20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With All Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) |
24 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With All Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) |
24 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With All Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) |
24 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With All Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) |
24 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With All Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) |
24 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With All Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) |
24 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel Failure (TVF) |
36 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel Failure (TVF) |
36 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel Failure (TVF) |
36 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel Failure (TVF) |
36 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel Failure (TVF) |
36 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Vessel Failure (TVF) |
36 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Failure (TLF) |
32 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Failure (TLF) |
32 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Failure (TLF) |
32 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Failure (TLF) |
32 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Failure (TLF) |
32 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Target Lesion Failure (TLF) |
32 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Stent Thrombosis |
3 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Stent Thrombosis |
3 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Stent Thrombosis |
3 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Stent Thrombosis |
3 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Stent Thrombosis |
3 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Stent Thrombosis |
3 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Stent Thrombosis |
3 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Occurrence of Stent Fracture at Target Lesion |
0.0 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Occurrence of Stent Fracture at Target Lesion |
0.0 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Occurrence of Stent Fracture at Target Lesion |
0.0 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Occurrence of Stent Fracture at Target Lesion |
0.0 | — |
Summary
A prospective, multi-center, single-arm study to establish the safety and effectiveness of the XIENCE V® Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent, XIENCE nano™ Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent, XIENCE PRIME™ LL Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent, HT PROGRESS and HT PILOT Coronary Guide Wires, and MINI-TREK Coronary Dilatation Catheter in patients undergoing elective percutaneous revascularization of native chronic total coronary occlusions
Eligibility Criteria
General Inclusion Criteria:
- Subject is ≥ 18 years of age at the time of consent.
- Subject is experiencing clinical symptoms considered suggestive of ischemic heart disease (e.g., chest pain or discomfort, heart failure, etc.) or has evidence of myocardial ischemia (e.g., abnormal functional study) attributed to the CTO target vessel and is scheduled for clinically indicated percutaneous revascularization.
- Subject is eligible and consents to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI procedure).
- Subject is an acceptable candidate for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), stenting, and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
- Subject is willing and able to sign an informed consent form (ICF) approved by a local Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee and to follow the protocol with up to 5-year follow up.
- Female subjects of child-bearing potential must have a negative qualitative or quantitative pregnancy test within 7 days before enrollment and effective birth control must be used up to 1 year following the index procedure.
Angiographic Inclusion Criteria
- A maximum of one de novo lesion with at least one target segment in a native coronary vessel meeting definition of chronic total occlusion. A "chronic total occlusion" is any non-acute total coronary occlusion fulfilling the following angiographic characteristics and estimated in duration at least 3 months by clinical history and/or comparison with antecedent angiogram or electrocardiogram:
- High-grade native coronary stenosis
- TIMI 0 or 1 antegrade flow
- Occluded segment suitable for placement of coronary stents:
- Segment without severe tortuosity (angulation ≥ 45º)
- Segment not located in an excessively distal location
General Exclusion Criteria
Candidates will be excluded from the study if any of the following conditions are present:
- Patients with any history of allergy to iodinated contrast that cannot be effectively managed medically, or any known allergy to clopidogrel bisulfate (Plavix®), aspirin, heparin, stainless steel, or everolimus
- Evidence of acute myocardial infarction (MI) within 72 hours of the intended treatment (defined as: Q-wave or non-Q-wave MI having creatine kinase (CK) enzymes 2 × the upper limit of normal (ULN) with the presence of a creatine kinase myocardial-band isoenzyme (CK-MB) above the Institution's ULN, or troponin (I or T) above the Institution's ULN)
- Previous coronary interventional procedure of any kind within the 30 days prior to the procedure in the target vessel
- Planned interventional treatment of either the target or any non-target vessel within 30 days post-procedure
- Planned interventional treatment of either the target or any non-target vessel within 6 months post-procedure with any alternative drug eluting stent (DES) (e.g., CYPHER Sirolimus-Eluting stent, TAXUS Paclitaxel-Eluting stent or Endeavor Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor stent)
- Any contraindication to cardiac catheterization or to any of the standard concomitant therapies used during routine cardiac catheterization and PCI (e.g., aspirin, clopidogrel, unfractionated heparin)
- Target lesion requires treatment with a device after successful crossing other than PTCA prior to stent placement (including, but not limited to directional or rotational coronary atherectomy, excimer laser, thrombectomy, etc.). Note: Use of alternative technologies to conventional guide wires that are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for CTO revascularization (e.g., Asahi Tornus and Corsair catheters, IntraLuminal Therapeutics Safe Cross guide wire, Flowcardia CROSSER system) is permitted and will be collected in the case report form.
- Patients with history of clinically significant abnormal laboratory findings including:
- Neutropenia ( 1.5 × ULN, or
- Serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL
- Patients with evidence of ongoing or active clinical instability including the following:
- Sustained syst
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01435031). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.