Search

Estimating the likelihood of urgent mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can facilitate procedural planning and clinical decision-making in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We analyzed 2,784 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2021 at 12 centers. The variable importance was estimated by a bootstrap applying a random forest algorithm to a propensity-matched sample (a ratio of 1:5 matching cases with controls on center). The identified variables were used to predict the risk of urgent MCS. The performance of the risk model was assessed in-sample and on 2,411 out-of-sample procedures that did not require urgent MCS. Urgent MCS was used in 62 (2.2%) of cases. Patients who required urgent MCS were older (70 [63 to 77] vs 66 [58 to 73] years, p = 0.003) compared with those who did not require urgent MCS. Technical (68% vs 87%, p <0.001) and procedural success (40% vs 85%, p <0.001) was lower in the urgent MCS group compared with cases that did not require urgent MCS. The risk model for urgent MCS use included retrograde crossing strategy, left ventricular ejection fraction, and lesion length. The resulting model demonstrated good calibration and discriminatory capacity with the area under the curve (95% confidence interval) of 0.79 (0.73 to 0.86) and specificity and sensitivity of 86% and 52%, respectively. In the out-of-sample set, the specificity of the model was 87%. The Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention CTO MCS score can help estimate the risk of urgent MCS use during CTO PCI., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Alaswad: consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific, Abbott Cardiovascular, Teleflex, and CSI Dr. Jaffer: sponsored research from Canon U.S.A., Siemens, Shockwave, Teleflex; Institutional grants: Abbott vascular, Boston Scientific, CSI, Philips, Asahi Intecc, and Biotronik; Consultant for Boston Scientific, Siemens, Biotronik, Magenta Medical, IMDS, and Asahi Intecc; Equity interest, Intravascular Imaging Inc.; DurVena; Massachusetts General Hospital has a patent licensing arrangement with Terumo, Canon U.S.A., and Spectrawave; FAJ has the right to receive royalties. Dr. Poommipanit: Asahi Intecc, Inc., Abbott, Vascular-Consultant. Dr. Khatri: received honoraria from Asahi Intecc; and is a speaker and proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr. Patel: member of the Speakers Bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Yeh: grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr. ElGuindy: received consultancy and proctorship fees from Medtronic, Asahi Intecc, Boston Scientific, and Terumo. Dr. Abi-Rafeh: proctor and speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Brilakis: consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (associate editor Circulation), Amgen, Asahi Intecc, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, IMDS, Medicure, Medtronic, Siemens, and Teleflex; research support: Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare; owner, Hippocrates LLC; shareholder: MHI Ventures, Cleerly Health, Stallion Medical. All other authors: Nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study. We analyzed the clinical and angiographic characteristics, and procedural outcomes of 7,171 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2021 at 35 international centers. Mean age was 64.5 ± 10 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 50 ± 13%. MCS was used in 4.5%, prophylactically in 78.7%, and urgently in 21.3%. The most common type of MCS overall was Impella CP (Abiomed) (55.5%), followed by intra-aortic balloon pump (14.8%) and TandemHeart (LivaNova Inc.) (10.0%). Prophylactic MCS patients were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (55% vs 42%, p <0.001) and had more complex lesions compared with cases without prophylactic MCS (Japan-CTO score: 2.80 ± 1.22 vs 2.39 ± 1.27, p <0.001). Cases with prophylactic MCS had similar technical (86% vs 87%, p = 0.643) but lower procedural (80% vs 86%, p = 0.028) success rates and higher rates of periprocedural major cardiac adverse events compared with no prophylactic MCS use (6.55% vs 1.68%, p <0.001). Urgent MCS use was associated with lower technical (68% vs 87%, p <0.001) and procedural (39% vs 86%, p <0.001) success rates and higher major cardiac adverse events compared with no-MCS use (32.26% vs 1.68%, p <0.001). The differences persisted in multivariable analyses. In summary, in this contemporary multicenter registry, MCS was used in 4.5% of CTO PCIs, mostly prophylactically (78.7%). Elective MCS cases had similar technical success but a higher risk of complications. Urgent MCS cases had lower technical and procedural success and higher periprocedural major complication rates., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)