Biolimus-A9 polymer-free coated stent in high bleeding risk patients with acute coronary syndrome: a<i>Leaders Free ACS</i>sub-study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Although a true clinical challenge, high bleeding risk patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have never been specifically studied. Leaders Free ACS, a pre-specified Leaders Free sub-study, determined efficacy, and safety of a combination of 1-month dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) with implantation of either a polymer-free Biolimus-A9-coated stent (BA9-DCS) or a bare-metal stent (BMS) in these patients. Methods and results: Leaders Free included 2466 patients undergoing PCI who had at least 1 of 13 pre-defined factors for an increased bleeding risk. Of these, 659 ACS patients were included in this analysis (BA9-DCS 330, BMS 329). At 12-month follow-up, treatment with the BA9-DCS was more effective (clinically driven target-lesion revascularization 3.9 vs. 9.0%, P = 0.009) and safer (cumulative incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite or probable stent thrombosis 9.3 vs. 18.5%, P = 0.001), driven by significantly lower rates of cardiac mortality (3.4 vs. 6.9%, P = 0.049) and myocardial infarction (6.9 vs. 13.8%, P = 0.005). Conclusion: We believe that the results of this sub-analysis from the Leaders Free trial are likely to significantly impact clinical practice for high bleeding risk patients presenting with an ACS: the use of a BMS can, in our view, no longer be recommended, and, given the paucity of available data for second-generation DES with shortened DAPT in these patients, the BA9-DCS should currently be considered as the device with the strongest evidence to support its use for this indication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".