Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

PPT

1,454 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

PPT

  1. 1. CAROTID ARTERY STENTING WITH EMBOLI PROTECTION PMA # P030047 Cordis Presentation Sidney A. Cohen, M.D., Ph.D. Group Director, Clinical Research
  2. 2. REQUESTED INDICATION <ul><li>The Cordis [Carotid Stent System is] indicated for use in the treatment of carotid artery disease in high-risk patients. High-risk is defined as patients with neurological symptoms (one or more TIA’s or one or more completed strokes) and > 50% atherosclerotic stenosis of the common or internal carotid artery by ultrasound or angiogram; </li></ul><ul><li>  and  </li></ul><ul><li>Patients without neurological symptoms and > 80% atherosclerotic stenosis of the common or internal carotid artery by ultrasound or angiogram. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients must also have one or more condition(s) that place them at high-risk for carotid endarterectomy. </li></ul>
  3. 3. AGENDA <ul><li>Project Overview & CAS Background </li></ul><ul><li>Description of Devices </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of PMA Clinical Data (Total of 1619 Pts) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Non-Randomized CAS Clinical Trials – Supportive data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CASCADE (European) Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>US FEASIBILITY Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li> 2. SAPPHIRE Pivotal Trial – Ken Ouriel, M.D. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized Arm: CAS vs. CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Randomized Arms: CAS and CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Overview of Training </li></ul><ul><li>Post-Market Surveillance Study </li></ul>
  4. 4. PROJECT OVERVIEW <ul><li>US FEASIBILITY Study start date - September 1998 </li></ul><ul><li>SAPPHIRE Pivotal Study start date – August 2000 </li></ul><ul><li>PMA filed on October 8, 2003 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Achieved primary endpoint of non-inferiority of CAS to CEA for 1-year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CAS - improved outcomes for MI and re-interventions with a significant decrease in cranial nerve injuries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sustained benefit of CAS treatment demonstrated through 3-years follow up </li></ul></ul><ul><li>PMA granted Expedited Review Status November 14, 2003 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant therapeutic advance </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. BACKGROUND Stroke & Carotid Disease <ul><li>> 700,000 strokes occur annually in the U.S. 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Stroke is the third leading cause of death with an estimated 164,000 deaths per year 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Up to 30% of strokes are caused by carotid artery disease 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Stroke is the number 1 cause of disability in the U.S. 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Health care costs for stroke in excess of $53.6 billion/year 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Over 50% of people under age 65 who have a stroke die within 8 years 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Older population with co-morbid disease 1 </li></ul>1. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2004 Update, American Heart Association 2. ACAS Executive Committee JAMA 273:1421-1428, 1995
  6. 6. BACKGROUND Carotid Endarterectomy <ul><li>50 year history of technique development and refinement </li></ul><ul><li>CEA is the current interventional standard of care in treating carotid artery disease to reduce the risk of stroke </li></ul><ul><li>Up to 200,000 CEAs performed per year in the U.S. 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Estimated that 20% of CEAs are performed on “high surgical-risk” patients annually in the U.S. 2 </li></ul><ul><li>High surgical risk defined: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anatomic - increased procedure risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical Co-morbidities - increased risk MI and death </li></ul></ul>1. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2004 Update, American Heart Association 2. Ouriel et al., J Vasc Surg 33:728-732, 2001
  7. 7. <ul><li>Randomized clinical studies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Superiority of CEA vs. best medical therapy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NASCET 1 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Symptomatic > 50% diameter stenosis </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ACAS 2 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Asymptomatic > 60% diameter stenosis </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ECST 3 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Symptomatic > 50% diameter stenosis </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>VA Cooperative Study 4 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Symptomatic > 50% diameter stenosis </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Standard of Care” for interventional treatment of symptomatic and asymtomatic carotid artery disease </li></ul>BACKGROUND Carotid Endarterectomy - cont 1. NASCET Trial Collaborators NEJM 325:445-453, 1991 2. ACAS Executive Committee JAMA 273:1421-1428, 1995 3. Rothwell et al., Stroke 34: 514-523, 2003 4. Hobson et al., NEJM 328:221-227, 1993
  8. 8. TYPE OF PATIENTS CURRENTLY TREATED WITH CEA <ul><li>CEA treatment of patients clearly extends beyond </li></ul><ul><li>NASCET/ACAS inclusion criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NASCET/ACAS studied a relatively healthy subset of patients: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ACAS screened 25 to enroll 1 patient 1 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NASCET 1 out of every 3 treated patients enrolled 1 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patients considered high risk for CEA as defined by trial ineligibility comprise up to 50% of patients in published series: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ochsner Clinic – 46.2% 2 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CCF Registry – 19.4% 3 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Wennberg et al., JAMA 279:1278-1281, 1998. 2. Leporre et al., J Vasc Surg 34: 581-586, 2001. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Ouriel et al., J Vasc Surg 33: 728-732, 2001. </li></ul>
  9. 9. NASCET/ACAS EXCLUSION CRITERIA <ul><li>Anatomic Risks </li></ul><ul><li>Tandem lesions </li></ul><ul><li>Previous CEA </li></ul><ul><li>Radiation therapy to neck (ACAS) </li></ul><ul><li>Status post radical neck dissection </li></ul><ul><li>Medical Co-morbidities </li></ul><ul><li>Age >79 </li></ul><ul><li>Previous CVA with profound deficit </li></ul><ul><li>MI within 6 months (NASCET) </li></ul><ul><li>Unstable angina </li></ul><ul><li>Atrial fibrillation </li></ul><ul><li>Symptomatic CHF </li></ul><ul><li>Valvular heart disease </li></ul><ul><li>Cancer with <50% 5 year survival </li></ul><ul><li>Renal/pulmonary/liver failure </li></ul>
  10. 10. CEA MORTALITY Wennberg, et al., JAMA, 279: 1278-1281, 1998 113,000 Medicare Patients (1992-1993) 30-Day Follow up Mortality %
  11. 11. PUBLISHED 30-DAY CEA EVENT RATES % 1. Leporre et al., J Vasc Surg 34:581-586, 2001. 2. Cebul et al., JAMA 279:1282-1287, 1998 3. Halm et al., Stroke 34: 14264-1472, 2003 1 2 3 3
  12. 12. IN-HOSPITAL CEA OUTCOMES US ACADEMIC CENTERS <ul><li>Retrospective analysis </li></ul><ul><li>1160 patients </li></ul><ul><li>12 academic centers in US </li></ul><ul><li>1988-90 </li></ul><ul><li>In-hospital Death + MI +Stroke </li></ul>McCrory DC et al. Stroke 1993;24:1285-1291 Death + MI + Stroke
  13. 13. IN-HOSPITAL CEA OUTCOMES US ACADEMIC CENTERS McCrory DC et al. Stroke 1993;24:1285-1291 Death + MI + Stroke
  14. 14. PERCENT ASYMTOMATIC PATIENTS UNDERGOING CEA IS UP TO 75% 1998 2001 2001 2003 % 1. Cebul et al., JAMA 279:1282-1287, 1998 2. Leporre et al., J Vasc Surg 34:581-586, 2001 3. Ouriel et al., J Vasc Surg 33: 728-732, 2001 4. Halm et al., Stroke 34: 14264-1472, 2003 1 2 3 4
  15. 15. Chambers New England Journal of Medicine. 315(14):860-5, 1986 Norris Stroke. 22(12):1485-90, 1991 Mendelsohn & Yadav, Management of Atherosclerotic Carotid Disease, Remedica Publishing, 2000 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-99% Stroke Incidence (%) Carotid Artery Stenosis INCIDENCE OF STROKE AT 360-DAYS Asymptomatic Patients
  16. 16. <ul><li>In US, standard of care for interventional treatment includes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NASCET/ACAS eligible & ineligible patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher risk patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Anatomic </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Medical Co-morbidities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>SAPPHIRE trial studied patients who currently are referred for treatment of their carotid disease </li></ul>TYPE OF PATIENTS CURRENTLY TREATED WITH CEA
  17. 17. RATIONALE FOR TREATMENT OF “HIGH SURGICAL-RISK” PATIENTS <ul><li>Initial evaluation of new technology (CAS) in cohort of patients where CEA is technically demanding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anatomic: difficult access that may lead to local tissue and nerve injury </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical Co-morbidities: patients less tolerant of general anesthesia & surgery </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CAS studied as an alternative and less invasive method of therapy </li></ul>
  18. 18. AGENDA <ul><li>Project Overview & CAS Background </li></ul><ul><li>Description of Devices </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of PMA Clinical Data (Total of 1619 Pts) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Non-randomized CAS Clinical Trials – Supportive data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CASCADE (European) Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>US FEASIBILITY Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li> 2. SAPPHIRE Pivotal Trial – Ken Ouriel, M.D. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized Arm: CAS vs. CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Randomized Arms: CAS and CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Overview of Training </li></ul><ul><li>Post-Market Surveillance Study </li></ul>
  19. 19. <ul><li>Includes a system consisting of 2 devices: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stent Delivery System </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Stent </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Delivery catheter </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emboli Protection Device </li></ul></ul>CAROTID ARTERY STENTING
  20. 20. Cordis PRECISE ™ Nitinol Stent
  21. 21. Cordis PRECISE ™ Nitinol Stent System <ul><li>Stent Delivery System: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5.5F Cordis PRECISE Nitinol Stent System </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6F Cordis PRECISE Nitinol Stent System </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Usable Length: 135 cm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guidewire Lumen: 0.018” compatible </li></ul></ul>5.5F (5 – 8 mm) 6F (9 – 10 mm) 5F
  22. 22. CAROTID ARTERY STENT SYSTEM Polyurethane filter on a Nitinol frame Basket Diameter: 4 - 8 mm Oversize basket : 0.5 – 1.5 mm vs. RVD Filter Pore Size: 100 microns Crossing Profile: 3.5F Wire Diameter: 0.014” Emboli Protection: ANGIOGUARD ™ XP Emboli Capture Guidewire
  23. 23. CAS SYSTEM ANIMATION
  24. 24. AGENDA <ul><li>Project Overview & CAS Background </li></ul><ul><li>Description of Devices </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of PMA Clinical Data (Total of 1619 Pts) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Non-Randomized CAS Clinical Trials – Supportive data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CASCADE (European) Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>US FEASIBILITY Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li> 2. SAPPHIRE Pivotal Trial – Ken Ouriel, M.D. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized Arm: CAS vs. CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-randomized Arms: CAS and CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Overview of Training </li></ul><ul><li>Post-Market Surveillance Study </li></ul>
  25. 25. CLINICAL TRIALS Supportive Data <ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gain experience: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Carotid stent system </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Learning curve for investigators </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Refine the stent delivery system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate the advantage of adding ANGIOGUARD ™ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Studies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CASCADE (European) Study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CAS, non-randomized </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>n=121 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1-year follow up </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>US FEASIBILITY Study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CAS, non-randomized </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>n=261 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3-year follow up </li></ul></ul></ul>
  26. 26. CASCADE STUDY The C ordis Sm a rt Self-Expandable S tent in Ca rotid Artery D iseas e
  27. 27. CASCADE STUDY <ul><li>Objective: </li></ul><ul><li>To evaluate the safety and performance of the SMART Stent with or without ANGIOGUARD ™ emboli capture device in patients with high grade carotid artery stenosis </li></ul><ul><li>Primary Endpoint: Ipsilateral stroke or procedural related death within 30 days of stent implantation </li></ul>
  28. 28. CASCADE STUDY Overview <ul><li>Design: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multi-center, prospective, non-randomized study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nine centers across Europe </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7F SMART Stent Delivery System </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>121 patients enrolled (31 with ANGIOGUARD ™ ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conducted from September 1998 until May 2002 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inclusion Criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>>70% stenosis if symptomatic by U/S or angiography </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>>85% stenosis if asymptomatic by U/S or angiography </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stenosis between origin of CCA and extracranial segment of the ICA </li></ul></ul>
  29. 29. CASCADE STUDY 30-Day Data % n=121
  30. 30. CASCADE STUDY 30-Day Outcomes With/Without ANGIOGUARD ™ % P=0.45 P>0.99 P=0.68
  31. 31. CASCADE STUDY <ul><li>Conclusion: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Carotid artery stenting was found to be feasible for the treatment of carotid stenosis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The ANGIOGUARD ™ distal protection device functioned well and reduced the risk of distal embolization, resulting in fewer strokes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>30-day stroke rate of 3.2%, with no major strokes </li></ul></ul></ul>
  32. 32. US FEASIBILITY STUDY The Cordis Nitinol Carotid Stent and Delivery System (SDS) in Patients with de novo or Restenotic Native Carotid Artery Lesions Trial
  33. 33. US FEASIBILITY STUDY <ul><li>Objective: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Primary: Assess the feasibility of carotid artery stenting in the treatment of obstructive carotid artery disease </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Secondary: Assess and standardize optimal operator techniques for pivotal trial </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. US FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview <ul><li>Design: </li></ul><ul><li>Non-randomized, prospective, 33 center trial </li></ul><ul><li>6/7F SMART ™ and 5.5F PRECISE ™ SDS </li></ul><ul><li>261 patients enrolled </li></ul><ul><ul><li>176 stent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>85 stent plus ANGIOGUARD ™ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sept 1998 through July 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>Follow up to 3 years </li></ul><ul><li>Key Inclusion Criteria: </li></ul><ul><li>Symptomatic > 60% stenosis by U/S or angiography </li></ul><ul><li>Asymptomatic > 80% stenosis by U/S or angiography </li></ul><ul><li>Native Common or Internal Carotid Artery </li></ul>
  35. 35. US FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview - cont <ul><li>Key Inclusion Criteria: (cont) </li></ul><ul><li>High Risk for Surgical Endarterectomy </li></ul><ul><li>Anatomic risk factors (not ACAS eligible): </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Restenosis after CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Radical neck dissection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contralateral carotid artery occlusion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ostial lesion of the common carotid </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>High take-off carotid bifurcation disease </li></ul></ul></ul>
  36. 36. US FEASIBILITY STUDY <ul><li>Primary Endpoint: </li></ul><ul><li>30-day MAE (death, any stroke, &/or MI) </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Key Secondary Endpoints: </li></ul><ul><li>Major clinical events </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6 months, 1, 2, 3 years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Patency (< 50% restenosis) by carotid U/S </li></ul><ul><ul><li>48 hours, 30 days, 6 months, 1, 2, & 3 years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Neurological assessments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>28 hours, 30 days, 6 months, 1, 2, & 3 years </li></ul></ul>
  37. 37. US FEASIBILITY STUDY 30-Day Events % n=261
  38. 38. US FEASIBILITY STUDY 30-Day Events With/Without ANGIOGUARD ™ P = 1.00 P = 0.31 P= 0.51 P = 0.19 % P = 0.10
  39. 39. US FEASIBILITY STUDY Cumulative Percentage of MAE to 1080 Days 6.9% 30 10.9% 16.8% 21.8% Error bars are 1.5 X S.E. Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of MAE Days: 30 360 720 1080 N at Risk: 247 218 177 113
  40. 40. US FEASIBILITY STUDY Cumulative Percentage of All Stroke to 30 Days and Ipsilateral Stroke from 31-1080 Days 6.1% 7.3% 8.7% 8.7% 30 Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of Stroke Days: 30 360 720 1080 N at Risk: 247 218 176 113
  41. 41. US FEASIBILITY STUDY Cumulative Percentage of Death to 1080 Days 9.0% 13.9% 4.0% 0.8% 30 Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of Death Days: 30 360 720 1080 N at Risk: 258 234 192 127
  42. 42. US FEASIBILITY STUDY <ul><li>Conclusion: </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrated feasibility of carotid stenting with the Cordis PRECISE ™ Nitinol Stent System </li></ul><ul><li>ANGIOGUARD ™ emboli protection device reduced the incidence of stroke </li></ul><ul><ul><li>30-day stroke rate 2.4%, with no major strokes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Provided run-in to pivotal study </li></ul>
  43. 43. CAROTID STENT 30-Day Stroke Rates by Study and ANGIOGUARD ™ P=0.10 P=0.45 P=0.02 %
  44. 44. CONCLUSIONS FROM SUPPORTIVE STUDIES <ul><li>Refinement of CAS System </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction in profile (7F to 5.5F) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improvement in design </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data supports benefit of ANGIOGUARD ™ emboli protection device in reducing stroke </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrated the feasibility of CAS </li></ul>
  45. 45. AGENDA <ul><li>Project Overview & CAS Background </li></ul><ul><li>Description of Devices </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of PMA Clinical Data (Total of 1619 Pts) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Non-Randomized CAS Clinical Trials – Supportive data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CASCADE (European) Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>US FEASIBILITY Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li> 2. SAPPHIRE Pivotal Trial – Ken Ouriel, M.D. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized Arm: CAS vs. CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Randomized Arms: CAS and CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Overview of Training </li></ul><ul><li>Post-Market Surveillance Study </li></ul>
  46. 46. SAPPHIRE PIVOTAL STUDY Ken Ouriel, M.D., F.A.C.S, F.A.C.C. Chairman, Division of Surgery Chairman, Department of Vascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation
  47. 47. SAPPHIRE STUDY Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of carotid stenting with emboli protection to endarterectomy in the treatment of carotid artery disease in high-risk patients.
  48. 48. SAPPHIRE STUDY Trial Design and Patient Flow Patients Referred for Evaluation of Carotid Disease Screened for SAPPHIRE Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria 2294 patients Evaluated by panel of physicians (interventionalist, surgeon, neurologist) who concur on qualification of patient n = 747
  49. 49. SAPPHIRE STUDY Trial Design and Patient Flow RCT 334 Randomized (310 Treated) Stent Treatment n=167 CEA Treatment n=167 Surgeon & Interventionalist will treat patient Evaluated by panel of physicians (interventionalist, surgeon, neurologist) who concur on qualification of patient n = 747
  50. 50. SAPPHIRE STUDY Trial Design and Patient Flow Non-Randomized Stent Arm n=406 RCT 334 Randomized (310 Treated) Surgeon: unacceptable risk for CEA Stent Treatment n=167 CEA Treatment n=167 Surgeon & Interventionalist will treat patient Evaluated by panel of physicians (interventionalist, surgeon, neurologist) who concur on qualification of patient n = 747
  51. 51. SAPPHIRE STUDY Trial Design and Patient Flow Non-Randomized Stent Arm n=406 Non-Randomized CEA Arm n=7 RCT 334 Randomized (310 Treated) Interventionalist: unacceptable risk for stenting Surgeon: unacceptable risk for CEA Stent Treatment n=167 CEA Treatment n=167 Surgeon & Interventionalist will treat patient Evaluated by panel of physicians (interventionalist, surgeon, neurologist) who concur on qualification of patient n = 747
  52. 52. SAPPHIRE STUDY <ul><li>Primary Endpoint: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Death (all-cause), any stroke, and MI to 30 days post-procedure plus death (all-cause) and ipsilateral stroke between days 31 and 360 post-procedure. </li></ul></ul>
  53. 53. SAPPHIRE STUDY Differences Between SAPPHIRE and Previous Surgical Trials <ul><li>Primary endpoint included all-cause mortality for 1 year </li></ul><ul><li>MAE includes MI in addition to death/stroke </li></ul><ul><li>24-hour post procedure stroke evaluation performed by neurologist </li></ul><ul><li>Use of Stroke scales in addition to PEx </li></ul><ul><li>Objective vessel patency data obtained by duplex U/S </li></ul><ul><li>Different specialties providing input on treatment strategy (multi-disciplinary team) </li></ul>
  54. 54. SAPPHIRE STUDY Relevance of MI as Part of the Primary Endpoint <ul><li>MI leads to disability, death, prolonged hospitalization, and increased health care costs – key safety endpoint </li></ul><ul><li>In patients undergoing peripheral vascular surgery who sustain a non-Q wave MI: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6-fold increase in mortality over 6 mo 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perioperative MI predicts mortality at one-year 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>27-fold increased risk of another MI over the next 6 mo 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Thus, perioperative MI is a strong surrogate for long-term mortality after vascular surgical procedures </li></ul><ul><li>Perioperative MI is part of the primary endpoint for other CAS trials (e.g. CREST) </li></ul>1 Kim et al. Circulation 2002;106:2366-2371 2 McFalls et al. Chest 1998;113:681-686
  55. 55. DEFINITIONS <ul><li>Myocardial Infarction : </li></ul><ul><li>Q wave MI </li></ul><ul><li>Chest pain or other acute symptoms consistent with myocardial ischemia and new pathological Q waves in two or more contiguous ECG leads as determined by an ECG Core Laboratory or independent review by the CEC, in the absence of timely cardiac enzyme data. </li></ul><ul><li>Non-Q wave MI </li></ul><ul><li>CK ratio >2, CK-MB >1 in the absence of new, pathological Q waves. </li></ul>
  56. 56. DEFINITIONS – (cont) <ul><li>Stroke : </li></ul><ul><li>Any non-convulsive, focal neurological deficit of abrupt onset persisting more than 24 hours was a stroke. The deficit must correspond to a vascular territory. Strokes were classified as major or minor using the NIH Stroke, Rankin and Barthel scales. For a stroke to be minor, it must be minor on all three scales. A stroke rated as major on any scale was considered major if the deficit persisted more than 3 months. Disabilities or impairments attributed to medical conditions that were non-neurological in origin were not considered strokes. </li></ul>
  57. 57. SAPPHIRE STUDY Statistical Analysis Plan (Randomized) <ul><li>Primary hypothesis: Non-inferiority of CAS to CEA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Primary Endpoint: Composite 360-day MAE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3% non-inferiority delta assumed (i.e., Stent no more than 3% higher than CEA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If non-inferiority demonstrated, then test for superiority (2 ° hypothesis) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Study was designed to stop enrollment based on interim analysis of 30-day MAE (2 ° endpoint) with final analysis on 360 day data (1 ° endpoint) </li></ul><ul><li>Enrollment stopped for administrative reasons </li></ul><ul><li>First planned interim analysis at 300 patients was not done as it was already evident that enrollment would stop </li></ul><ul><li>Final analysis on the 1 ° endpoint utilized the interval censored survival analysis method designated in protocol </li></ul><ul><li>No adjustments were required since no interim analysis performed </li></ul>
  58. 58. SAPPHIRE STUDY Diminishing Enrollment (Randomized) Competing CAS registries Stop Enrollment
  59. 59. SAPPHIRE STUDY Key Inclusion Criteria <ul><li>Patients referred for treatment of Carotid Artery Disease </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Symptomatic > 50% stenosis by U/S or angiography </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asymptomatic > 80% stenosis by U/S or angiography </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disease of Native Common or Internal Carotid Artery </li></ul><ul><li>Consensus agreement by multidisciplinary team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interventionalist, Consulting Neurologist, Surgeon </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Must also have at least 1 co-morbid condition which increases the risk of endarterectomy: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anatomic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical </li></ul></ul>
  60. 60. <ul><ul><li>Anatomic factors: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contralateral carotid occlusion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contralateral laryngeal nerve palsy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Radiation therapy to neck </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Previous CEA with recurrent stenosis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Difficult surgical access </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Severe tandem lesions </li></ul></ul></ul>SAPPHIRE STUDY Key Inclusion Criteria - cont
  61. 61. <ul><li>Medical Co-morbidities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CHF (class III/IV) &/or severe LV dysfunction (LVEF <30%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open heart surgery within 6 weeks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recent MI (1 day to 4 weeks prior) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Angina at low workload or unstable angina (CCS class III/IV) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Severe pulmonary disease </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Age greater than 80 years </li></ul></ul>SAPPHIRE STUDY Key Inclusion Criteria - cont
  62. 62. SAPPHIRE STUDY Trial Design and Patient Flow RCT 334 Randomized (310 Treated) Stent Treatment n=167 CEA Treatment n=167 Surgeon & Interventionalist will treat patient Non-Randomized Stent Arm n=406 Non-Randomized CEA Arm n=7 Evaluated by panel of physicians (interventionalist, surgeon, neurologist) who concur on qualification of patient n = 747
  63. 63. SAPPHIRE STUDY Demographics – Randomized Patients
  64. 64. SAPPHIRE STUDY Acute Procedure & Device Outcomes* <ul><li>Stent Delivery Success**: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized Stent: 99.4% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Randomized Stent: 99.8% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Device Success ( Stent): <30% DS *** <50% DS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized Stent: 91.2% 99.4% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Randomized Stent: 89.6% 98.5% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ANGIOGUARD ™ Success (Deployment and Retrieval) </li></ul><ul><li>Initial Attempt *** Ultimate Placement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized Stent: 95.6% 98.1% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Rand Stent: 91.6% 95.1% </li></ul></ul>* Patients in whom treatment was attempted ** Device Failures Tables *** Per Protocol Definition
  65. 65. SAPPHIRE STUDY OUTCOMES Data Presented Are Based on Intent-to-Treat Analyses (unless otherwise specified)
  66. 66. SAPPHIRE STUDY Trial Design and Patient Flow RCT 334 Randomized (310 Treated) Stent Treatment n=167 CEA Treatment n=167 Clinical 93.5% Ultrasound 80.6% Ultrasound 69.2% Clinical 85.6% 1 Year Compliance All events adjudicated by independent CEC Angiograms and ultrasounds reviewed by independent core labs
  67. 67. SAPPHIRE All Randomized Patients at 30 Days % P=0.68 P=1.00 P=0.17 P=0.14
  68. 68. SAPPHIRE STUDY Primary Endpoint at 360 Days Randomized Patients – Overall Rates
  69. 69. SAPPHIRE STUDY Primary Endpoint – 360-day MAE   Non-Inferiority Statistics Margin of Non-inferiority Stent Non-inferior to CEA 3% % Difference (Stent – CEA) – 7.2%[–14.9%, 0.6%] 19.2% (32/167) 12.0% (20/167) %Difference [95% C.I.] CEA Stent
  70. 70. SAPPHIRE STUDY Primary Endpoint at 360 Days P=0.14 P=0.83 P=0.17 P=0.10 (30 day) %
  71. 71. SAPPHIRE STUDY Primary Endpoint at 360 Days % P=0.21 P=0.50 P=0.83
  72. 72. SAPPHIRE STUDY Cumulative % of MAE to 360 Days Randomized Patients – Kaplan Meier Analysis CEA 20.1% Stent 12.2% LR p = 0.053 9.8% 4.8% Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of MAE
  73. 73. SAPPHIRE STUDY Cumulative % of MAE to 720 Days Randomized Patients – Kaplan Meier Analysis 9.8% 4.8% 30 12.2% 20.1% CEA 26.7% Stent 19.2% Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of MAE 9.8% 4.8% 12.2% 20.1% CEA 26.7% Stent 19.2% Days: 30 360 720 N at Risk (CEA): 161 125 59 N at Risk (Stent): 163 147 88
  74. 74. SAPPHIRE STUDY Cumulative % of Stroke* to 720 Days Randomized Patients - Kaplan Meier Analysis 3.6% Stent 3.1% CEA 30 5.8% CEA 5.8% CEA 5.9% Stent 4.9% Stent * All Stroke to 30 days and ipsilateral stroke from 31-720 Days Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of Stroke Days: 30 360 720 N at Risk (CEA): 159 130 59 N at Risk (Stent): 162 145 88
  75. 75. SAPPHIRE STUDY Cumulative % of Death to 720 Days Randomized Patients - Kaplan Meier Analysis 1.2% Stent 2.5% CEA 30 7.4% Stent 13.5% CEA 20.9% CEA 14.4% Stent Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of Death Days: 30 360 720 N at Risk (CEA): 162 137 64 N at Risk (Stent): 166 153 93
  76. 76. <ul><li>Total Deaths: 33 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CEA: 21 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stent: 12 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Total Number of Neurologic Deaths: 4 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CEA: 3 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stent: 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-Neurologic Deaths 29 </li></ul>SAPPHIRE STUDY Cause of Death at 360 Days - R andomized
  77. 77. <ul><li>Total Deaths: 33 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CEA: 21 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stent: 12 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Total Number of Neurologic Deaths: 4 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CEA: 3 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stent: 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-Neurologic Deaths CEA Stent </li></ul><ul><li>29 18 11 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cardiac 18 10 8 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Respiratory Failure 4 3 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cancer 3 1 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Renal Failure 1 1 0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multi-system Failure 3 3 0 </li></ul></ul>SAPPHIRE STUDY Cause of Death at 360 Days - Randomized
  78. 78. SAPPHIRE STUDY Complications 0.01 8 (4.8%) 0 (0.0%) Cranial Nerve Injury 0.85 17 (10.2%) 15 (9.0%) Major Bleeding --- 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Vessel Thrombosis 0.12 6 (3.6%) 1 (0.6%) Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR) P-value CEA (n=167) Stent (n=167)
  79. 79. SAPPHIRE STUDY Restenosis Rates and TLR at 360 Days * Protocol Definition 0.12 3.6% (6/167) 0.6% (1/167) TLR – Clinically driven (to 360 days) 0.17 4.2% (4/96) 0.8% (1/122) >80% Diameter Stenosis 0.09 5.2% (5/96) 0.8% (1/122) >70% Diameter Stenosis 0.06 31.3% (30/96) 19.7% (24/122) >50% Diameter Stenosis* P-value CEA (n=167) Stent (n=167) In-Vessel Restenosis by U/S
  80. 80. SAPPHIRE STUDY Analysis of the Evaluable (Treated) Patients
  81. 81. SAPPHIRE STUDY Randomized Patients Who Were Not Treated 16 CEA Stent 8 TOTAL: 2 0 Other : 2 3 Patient Condition Deteriorated/Too High a Risk: 8 3 Patient Withdrew Consent: 4 2 Subsequent to randomization found to not meet Inclusion Criteria:
  82. 82. SAPPHIRE STUDY Primary Endpoint 360 Days – Randomized TREATED Patients
  83. 83. SAPPHIRE STUDY Cumulative % of MAE to 360 Days Randomized TREATED Patients – Kaplan Meier Analysis Time After Initial Procedure (days) LR p = 0.048 CAS: 12.0% CEA: 20.1% Cumulative Percentage of MAE
  84. 84. SAPPHIRE STUDY Trial Design and Patient Flow Non-Randomized Stent Arm n=406 Non-Randomized CEA Arm n=7 RCT 334 Randomized (310 Treated) Stent Treatment n=167 CEA Treatment n=167 Surgeon & Interventionalist will treat patient Surgeon: unacceptable risk for CEA Evaluated by panel of physicians (interventionalist, surgeon, neurologist) who concur on qualification of patient n = 747
  85. 85. SAPPHIRE STUDY Non-Randomized Stent Arm vs. CEA Randomized Demographic Characteristics
  86. 86. SAPPHIRE STUDY MAE at 360 Days Rand CEA: 20.1% Non-Rand Stent: 16.0% Rand Stent: 12.2% Non-Randomized Stent Arm vs. Randomized Stent & CEA Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of MAE Rand CEA: 9.8% Non-Rand Stent: 6.9% Rand Stent: 4.8%
  87. 87. <ul><li>Original non-inferiority analysis based on OPC ~12-14% plus 4% delta </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Weighted OPC calculated at 12.94 was not met </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OPC estimated (1999) without benefit of multi-center randomized data from high-surgical risk studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SAPPHIRE CEA arm </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 year MAE rate of 19.2% </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Has  frequency of high surgical-risk characteristics </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Agency consulted in March 2003 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FDA suggested supplemental non-inferiority analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Randomized Stent Arm to the Randomized CEA Arm </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adjustment for differences in baseline demographics </li></ul></ul></ul>SAPPHIRE STUDY Non-Randomized Stent Arm
  88. 88. SAPPHIRE STUDY Primary Endpoint – 360-day MAE Adjusted for Baseline Characteristics   Margin of Non-inferiority % Difference (Non-randomized Stent – Randomized CEA) Stent Non-inferior to CEA 3% Non-Inferiority Statistics – 5.3%[–13.4%, 3.0%] %Difference [95% C.I.]
  89. 89. SAPPHIRE STUDY Complications <0.01 0 (0.0%) 8 (4.8%) 0 (0.0%) Cranial Nerve Injury 0.33 54 (13.3%) 17 (10.2%) 15 (9.0%) Major Bleeding 0.56 3 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Vessel Thrombosis 0.02 3 (0.7%) 6 (3.6%) 1 (0.6%) TLR P-value (CEA vs. Non-Rand) Non-Rand Stent (n = 406) Randomized CEA (n = 167) Randomized Stent (n = 167)
  90. 90. SAPPHIRE STUDY Trial Design and Patient Flow Non-Randomized Stent Arm n=406 Non-Randomized CEA Arm n=7 RCT 334 Randomized (310 Treated) Stent Treatment n=167 CEA Treatment n=167 Surgeon & Interventionalist will treat patient Interventionalist: unacceptable risk for stenting Surgeon: unacceptable risk for CEA Evaluated by panel of physicians (interventionalist, surgeon, neurologist) who concur on qualification of patient n = 747
  91. 91. <ul><li>Study is not powered for subgroup analyses </li></ul><ul><li>Symptomatic/Asymptomatic: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomization stratified by +/- symptoms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subgroup analyses pre-specified </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Subgroup sample sizes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Symptomatic Patients: 96 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asymptomatic Patients: 237 </li></ul></ul>SAPPHIRE STUDY Subgroup Analyses
  92. 92. SAPPHIRE STUDY 30-Day MAE Asymptomatic (ITT) % P=0.62 P=0.54 P=0.22 P=0.46
  93. 93. SAPPHIRE STUDY 360-Day MAE Asymptomatic (ITT) % P=0.15 P=1.00 P=0.08 P=0.07
  94. 94. SAPPHIRE STUDY Cumulative % of MAE Asymptomatic to 360 Days All Randomized Patients – Kaplan Meier Analysis Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of MAE LR p = 0.04 CEA: 20.3% Stent: 10.5%
  95. 95. SAPPHIRE STUDY 30-Day MAE Symptomatic (ITT) P=0.10 P=0.61 P=0.48 P=0.11 %
  96. 96. SAPPHIRE STUDY 360-Day MAE Symptomatic (ITT) % P=0.57 P=0.35 P=1.00
  97. 97. SAPPHIRE STUDY Cumulative % of MAE Symptomatic to 360 Days All Randomized Patients – Kaplan Meier Analysis Time After Initial Procedure (days) Cumulative Percentage of MAE LR p = 0.58 CEA: 20.0% Stent: 16.3%
  98. 98. SAPPHIRE STUDY 360-Day MAE Symptomatic vs. Asymptomatic (ITT) % P=0.07 n=281 n=46 n=124 n=120 n=117 n=50
  99. 99. SAPPHIRE STUDY 360-Day MAE Symptomatic vs. Asymptomatic Treated (Evaluable) Patients P=0.02 % n=281 n=124 n=111 n=48 n=108 n=43
  100. 100. SAPPHIRE STUDY Surgeon Experience and Outcomes <ul><li>Experience and outcomes for surgeons in SAPPHIRE trial are consistent with previous surgical data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CEA volume </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complication rates </li></ul></ul>
  101. 101. SAPPHIRE STUDY Surgeon Experience & Judgment <ul><li>Pre-study survey conducted </li></ul><ul><ul><li>53 SAPPHIRE surgeons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mean of 36.3 procedures per year </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Median of 28 procedures per year </li></ul></ul></ul>
  102. 102. CEA OUTCOMES BY VOLUME Wennberg, JAMA 289: 1278-1281, 1998 Annualized Volume Tercile - # Procedures in Medicare Treated Patients Tercile of cases per year – all CEA surgeons Mortality (%)
  103. 103. CEA OUTCOMES BY VOLUME Wennberg, JAMA 289: 1278-1281, 1998 Annualized Volume Tercile - # Procedures in Medicare Treated Patients Tercile of cases per year – all CEA surgeons Mortality (%) SAPPHIRE 1 4 48 Cases/Surgeon
  104. 104. CRANIAL NERVE INJURY Comparison with Other Studies SAPPHIRE Randomized CEA: 4.8% NASCET: 7.2% VA Cooperative Study: 3.8% ACAS: NA NASCET AND VA STUDY EXCLUDED REPEAT CEA
  105. 105. SURGICAL OUTCOMES vs. OTHER TRIALS 30-Day Ipsilateral Stroke Error Bar = 95% CI %
  106. 106. <ul><li>Comparison of 30-day ipsilateral stroke rates </li></ul><ul><li>SAPPHIRE randomized and non-randomized symptomatic stent patients vs. NASCET </li></ul><ul><li>SAPPHIRE randomized and non-randomized asymptomatic stent patients vs. ACAS </li></ul>CAS OUTCOMES TO OTHER SURGICAL TRIALS
  107. 107. CAS OUTCOMES TO OTHER SURGICAL TRIALS Symptomatic Patients 30-Day Ipsilateral Stroke Error Bar = 95% CI %
  108. 108. CAS OUTCOMES TO OTHER SURGICAL TRIALS Asymptomatic Patients 30-Day Ipsilateral Stroke Error Bar = 95% CI %
  109. 109. SAPPHIRE STUDY CAS 30-Day Mortality <ul><li>CAS 30-day all cause mortality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Symptomatic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized – 0.0% </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-randomized – 0.8% </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asymptomatic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized – 1.7% </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-randomized – 2.8% </li></ul></ul></ul>
  110. 110. SAPPHIRE STUDY Conclusions
  111. 111. SAPPHIRE STUDY Conclusions: Randomized Arm <ul><li>The primary endpoint of the study was achieved demonstrating CAS is non-inferior to CEA </li></ul><ul><li>Trends favoring CAS over CEA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Major Ipsilateral stroke </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TLR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Restenosis (>50% DS) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Significant decrease in cranial nerve injuries </li></ul>
  112. 112. SAPPHIRE STUDY Conclusions: Randomized Arm <ul><li>Symptomatic and asymptomatic subgroups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ITT Asymptomatic: Significant improvement at 360 days in favor of CAS compared to CEA with 50% reduction in MAE rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ITT Symptomatic: MAE rates at 360 days were similar between CAS and CEA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outcomes for ipsilateral stroke overlap those from NASCET and ACAS </li></ul></ul>
  113. 113. <ul><li>Risk factors contributing to “too high risk for CEA”: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anatomic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prior CEA </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prior radiation therapy </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>High cervical ICA lesion </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Angina Class CCS III or IV </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Previous stroke </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-inferior to randomized CEA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Surgeons in SAPPHIRE were experienced in CEA and had outcomes similar to referenced literature </li></ul><ul><li>Too high risk for surgery  Too high risk for stenting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>True for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients </li></ul></ul>SAPPHIRE STUDY Conclusions: Non-Randomized Stent Arm
  114. 114. AGENDA <ul><li>Project Overview & CAS Background </li></ul><ul><li>Description of Devices </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of PMA Clinical Data (Total of 1619 Pts) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Non-Randomized CAS Clinical Trials – Supportive data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CASCADE (European) Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>US FEASIBILITY Study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li> 2. SAPPHIRE Pivotal Trial – Ken Ouriel, M.D. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized Arm: CAS vs. CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Randomized Arms: CAS and CEA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Overview of Training </li></ul><ul><li>Post-Market Surveillance Study </li></ul>
  115. 115. Carotid Artery Stent Education System PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
  116. 116. CAROTID ARTERY STENT TRAINING SYSTEM <ul><li>Training system is intended to build upon already existing endovascular expertise to develop a physicians knowledge and technical expertise in performing CAS </li></ul><ul><li>System was developed using a variety of consultants: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SAPPHIRE Investigators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internet based training </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simulator modeling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proficiency measurements </li></ul></ul>
  117. 117. On-line Didactic Observation Simulation Staff In-Service Proctor Network Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Internet Delivery Regional Education Center On-site Training at Physician’s Facility Patient Outcomes Staff Training DELIVERY PROCESS Proficiency Measurement
  118. 118. <ul><li>On-line didactic training: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transferring Expert Knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Through doing and decision making </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Goal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assure Procedural Success </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Detailed understanding of anatomy </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Appropriate case selection </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>High performance technical execution </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Training at Regional Education Center: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small group setting – review 4 Modules Over 2 Days </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Didactic Review, Case Observation, Simulation Lab, Product Lab </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Physicians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>interact with realistic graphical simulations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>assess task performance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>demonstrate understanding of the learning objectives </li></ul></ul></ul>CAROTID ARTERY STENT TRAINING SYSTEM
  119. 119. <ul><li>On-site training at physician’s facility by physician proctors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Network of CAS experienced physician proctors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proctor Sign Off or Additional Training Recommendations Based on Proficiency Standards </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Training Program: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>34 Hours of Training with exposure to a minimum of 15 Cases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Serves as the foundation for hospital credentialing </li></ul></ul>CAROTID ARTERY STENT TRAINING SYSTEM
  120. 120. INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF TRAINING Institutional IDEs <ul><li>36 centers ( 30 non-Sapphire Investigators) </li></ul><ul><li>All investigators were trained and proctored on use of the stent and the emboli protection system </li></ul><ul><li>Patient selection criteria similar to the US FEASIBILITY Study </li></ul><ul><li>Neurologist evaluation 24 hours and 30 days post-procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Data are site reported and unadjudicated </li></ul>
  121. 121. INSTITUTIONAL IDEs 30-Day Events - Site Reported %
  122. 122. COMPARISON OF 30-DAY EVENT RATES Treated Patients with ANGIOGUARD ™ Only %
  123. 123. <ul><li>Carotid Stenting With Emboli Protection For The Treatment of Obstructive Carotid Artery Disease </li></ul>POST-MARKETING SURVEILLANCE
  124. 124. POST-MARKETING SURVEILLANCE <ul><li>Objective : </li></ul><ul><li>To compare clinical outcomes with historical control data from SAPPHIRE in the early time period following approval and assess the effectiveness of the training program </li></ul><ul><li>Design: </li></ul><ul><li>Multicenter, prospective, non-randomized, open label </li></ul><ul><li>Primary Endpoint: </li></ul><ul><li>30-day composite of major adverse clinical events </li></ul><ul><li>(MAE = all death and all stroke) </li></ul>
  125. 125. <ul><li>Study Population: </li></ul><ul><li>High Risk patients with de novo or restenotic lesions </li></ul><ul><li>> 1000 patients </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusion Criteria: Per Label Indications </li></ul><ul><li>Follow-up: </li></ul><ul><li>Neurologic examinations at discharge and 30 days (Neurologist) </li></ul><ul><li>Clinical events tracking through discharge </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>30-day office visit </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>9-month telephone contact </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Monitoring with built in stopping rule: </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic data capture to expedite review of outcomes </li></ul>POST-MARKETING SURVEILLANCE
  126. 126. CAROTID ARTERY STENTING WITH EMBOLI PROTECTION Summary and Conclusions
  127. 127. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <ul><li>Stroke </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant morbidity and mortality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Due to carotid disease in up to 30% of patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Goal of Tx: to prevent stroke and improve quality of life </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CEA is the standard of care in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NASCET/ACAS eligible and ineligible patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low, intermediate, and high risk </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There are no multi-center randomized studies that define outcomes in high medical- or surgical-risk patients </li></ul><ul><li>SAPPHIRE is an objective comparison of CEA, the current interventional standard of care, with CAS, a less invasive approach to therapy </li></ul>
  128. 128. <ul><li>Cordis is seeking the following indication: </li></ul><ul><li>The Cordis [Carotid Stent System is] indicated for use in the treatment of carotid artery disease in high-risk patients. High-risk is defined as patients with neurological symptoms (one or more TIA’s or one or more completed strokes) and > 50% atherosclerotic stenosis of the common or internal carotid artery by ultrasound or angiogram; </li></ul><ul><li>  and  </li></ul><ul><li>Patients without neurological symptoms and > 80% atherosclerotic stenosis of the common or internal carotid artery by ultrasound or angiogram. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients must also have one or more condition(s) that place them at high-risk for carotid endarterectomy. </li></ul>SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  129. 129. <ul><li>This indication is supported by: </li></ul><ul><li>SAPPHIRE </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Achieved primary endpoint of non-inferiority of CAS to CEA for MAE at 1-year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CAS - improved outcomes for MI and re-interventions with a significant decrease in cranial nerve injuries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SUPPORTIVE STUDIES </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CAS treatment demonstrated sustained benefit through 3-year follow up </li></ul></ul>CONCLUSION
  130. 130. <ul><li>Cordis will institute a training program to ensure outcomes of carotid stenting in non-trial setting replicates safety and effectiveness demonstrated in SAPPHIRE </li></ul><ul><li>Cordis will conduct a post-marketing surveillance study with the goal of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>quantifying patient outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>confirming the adequacy of physician training </li></ul></ul>SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  131. 131. THANK YOU

×