1. Potential conflicts of interest
Speaker’s name: Sjoerd Hofma
 I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report:  1

2. On behalf of all principal COMPARE II investigators:
COMPARE II trial: 1-Year Clinical Data for the Treatment of Small Vessels (<2.75 mm)
Sjoerd Hofma
On behalf of all principal COMPARE II investigators:
Pieter Cornelis Smits, Ad van Boven, Jean-Jaques Goy, Peter den Heyer, Antonio Serra, Ton Slagboom, Mario Togni, Ramiro Trillo Nouche, Mariano Valdés, Andre Vuillomenet, Jose Vázquez, Vassilis Voudris 2

3. Biolimus Eluring Stent (BES) Everolimus Eluting Stent (EES)
COMPARE II trial
a large scale, multicenter, prospective,
randomized (2:1) study, N=2707
Biolimus Eluring Stent (BES)
N=1795
Everolimus Eluting Stent (EES)
N=912
abluminal, biodegradable
polymer
biolimus-eluting stent
durable polymer
everolimus-eluting stent
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT

4. Endpoints Primary endpoint Major secondary endpoints COMPARE II trial
Composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization
Major secondary endpoints
Composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization
Stent thrombosis (def/prob) according to ARC
Dual antiplatelet therapy was 12 months for each treatment arm
The primary hypothesis was non-inferiority of BES vs EES.
Data were independently monitored and adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee.

5. COMPARATORS Xience / Promus Nobori COMPARE II trial
Everolimus 1.0 µg/mm2
Fluoropolymer
Vision multilinkTM
Nobori
Biolimus 15,6 µg/mm
Poly-lactic acid
S-StentTM

6. COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Small coronary vessels (reference ø < 2.75 mm) are often associated with diabetic and female patients and remain an important challenge in interventional cardiology.
We performed a pre-specified substudy on outcome in patients with small vessel treatment within the all-comer COMPARE II trial.

7. Methodology BES 1282 patients EES 659 patients Small vessels
COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Methodology
Total:
2707 patients
BES
1282 patients
EES
659 patients
Small vessels
< 2.75 mm
Xience/
Promus
EES
Nobori BES
Total: 766
253
513

8. Baseline Characteristics
COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Baseline Characteristics
Baseline demographics
BES
513 pts
EES
253 pts
P-value
Age (mean ± SD)
64.31 ± 10.74
63.61 ± 11.23 NS
Female, %
26.5
24.9
Cardiovascular history
Previous MI, %
23.4
21.1
Previous PTCA, %
18.7
19.0
Previous CABG, %
6.2
5.9
Previous stroke, %
3.9
4.4
Peripheral artery disease, %
8.6
7.1

9. Baseline Characteristics
COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Baseline Characteristics
Risk Factors
BES
513 pts
EES
253 pts
P-value
Smoker, %
27.5
23.7 NS
Hypertension, %
57.1
59.3
Diabetes, %
25.7
27.7
Renal Failure, %
4.1
6.1
Liver insufficiency, %
0.79
0.80
COPD, %
9.27
7.57

10. COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Anginal Status
BES
EES

11. Lesion Characteristics
COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Lesion Characteristics
BES
(983 lesions)
EES
(518 lesions) p
Mean ± SD
Lesion length
16.35 ± 9.45
17.44 ± 9.91
0.02
Nb of lesions treated / patient
1.92 ± 0.99
2.05 ± 1.15 NS
Stents / lesion
1.39 ± 0.76
1.34 ± 0.63
RVD, pre*
2.67 ± 0.41
2.66 ± 0.45
* All lesions per patient, not only lesions in small vessels

12. Lesion Characteristics
COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Lesion Characteristics
BES
EES
P=NS
Type A
Type B1
Type B2
Type C

13. Cardiac Death, MI, Clinically Indicated TVR
COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Primary Endpoint
Cardiac Death, MI, Clinically Indicated TVR
P = NS

14. Cardiac Death, MI, Clinically Indicated TLR
COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Secondary Endpoint
Cardiac Death, MI, Clinically Indicated TLR
P = NS

15. Stent Thrombosis (ARC)
COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Stent Thrombosis (ARC)
P = NS
Definite/Probable ST, ARC

16. COMPARE II trial Small Vessels Subgroup
Conclusions
In an all-comer population, treatment of small coronary vessels with the Nobori, DES with biodegradable polymer, showed similar outcomes compared to the Xience/Promus DES with biocompatile, permanent polymer
Both types of stent demonstrated excellent results up to 1-year follow-up
Our study add further evidence about the performance of contemporary limus drug eluting stents in this challenging lesion subset