Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT06089304 |
Other study ID # |
SVTP90997943 and SVTP90996971 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
May 2008 |
Est. completion date |
October 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
September 2023 |
Source |
Abbott Medical Devices |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Observational
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is indicated in all patients undergoing coronary stent
implantation to prevent ischemic recurrencies despite an increased risk of bleeding.
Accordingly, clinical practice guidelines advocate tailoring DAPT duration according to the
patient's individual ischemic and bleeding risk profile.
Data from 11 clinical trials involving patients who underwent percutaneous coronary
intervention (PCI) with an everolimus-eluting stent will be pooled and analyzed to develop a
machine learning-based algorithm to predict the probability of an ischemic or bleeding event
up to 1 year. These predictive risk models aim to support clinical decision-making on DAPT
management after PCI.
Description:
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is the standard of care
for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). DAPT has
demonstrated its efficacy in reducing ischemic complications (including stent thrombosis)
after PCI although at the cost of an increased risk of bleeding. As both event types have
been independently linked with excess morbidity and mortality, international guidelines
emphasize the need to tailor DAPT duration and intensity according to the individual ischemic
and bleeding risk profile of each patient. In this context, several predictive risk models
for bleeding and thrombosis have been developed with the aim of guiding clinical decisions on
DAPT management post-PCI. However, many of these risk models have shown only modest
performance and limited applicability in real-world clinical practice. Such limitations can
be attributed, at least in part, to the analytical approaches used for their development,
mostly based on linear models unable to capture the complex interplay between different
clinical covariates. Machine learning methods offer the potential to overcome these
limitations by leveraging computer algorithms to large datasets that capture
high-dimensional, non-linear relationships among variables. However, the feasibility and
usefulness of machine learning-based prognostic risk models in PCI patients remain relatively
unexplored.
The present study will analyze data from 11 clinical trials encompassing approximately 19,000
patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with an everolimus-eluting stent
to develop a machine learning-based algorithm. Institutional review board approval or
informed patient consent was not required as this study is an analysis of previously
published clinical trials and all individual patient data were deidentified. The goal is to
predict the probability of an ischemic or bleeding event up to 1 year after PCI.
Patient-level data from the eligible clinical trials listed per the XIENCE Machine Learning
Data Acquisition Protocol (90961902) will be pooled and randomly split into a training cohort
(~75%) and a validation cohort (~25%). These include both Abbott- sponsored and
investigator-initiated XIENCE studies (i.e., XIENCE V, XIENCE 28 USA, XIENCE 28 GLOBAL,
XIENCE 90, ABSORB III, ABSORB IV, Compare ABSORB, Compare Acute, EXAMINATION, SIERRA-75 and
ITALIC). The performance of different trials of machine learning classifiers will be compared
with traditional statistical approaches for the prediction of ischemic and bleeding outcomes.
The best-performing machine learning model will then be selected and tested against a
pre-defined performance goal to assess its clinical usefulness. Based on existing literature
on established risk scores that currently inform clinical practice, the performance goal for
the model is set at C-index value equal or greater than 0.65 at the 97.5% lower confidence
interval of the bootstrap C-index distribution. This is to ensure that the true value of the
C-index is still within a clinically relevant range and to validate the clinical usefulness
of the risk prediction model.