Search

Background: Coronary artery perforation is one of the most feared and common complications of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: To assess the usefulness of the recently developed PROGRESS-CTO (NCT02061436) perforation risk score in independent cohorts. Individual patient-level data pooled analysis of three registries was performed. Results: Of the 4566 patients who underwent CTO PCI at 25 centers, 196 (4.2%) had coronary artery perforation. Patients with perforations were older (69 ± 10 vs. 65 ± 10, p < 0.001), more likely to be women (19% vs. 13%, p = 0.009), more likely to have a history of prior coronary artery bypass graft (34% vs. 20%, p < 0.001), and unfavorable angiographic characteristics such as blunt stump (62% vs. 48%, p < 0.001), proximal cap ambiguity (52% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and moderate-severe calcification (60% vs. 49%, p = 0.002). Technical success was lower in patients with perforations (73% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PROGRESS-CTO perforation risk model was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72−0.79), with good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.97). We found that the CTO PCI perforation risk increased with higher PROGRESS-CTO perforation scores: 0.3% (score 0), 2.3% (score 1), 3.1% (score 2), 5.5% (score 3), 7.5% (score 4), 14.6% (score 5). Conclusion: Given the good discriminative performance, calibration, and the ease of calculation, the PROGRESS-CTO perforation score may facilitate assessment of the risk of perforation in patients undergoing CTO PCI.

The use of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study.We analyzed the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and procedural outcomes of 82 CTO PCIs that required IVL at 14 centers between 2020 and 2022.During the study period, IVL was used in 82 of 3301 (2.5%) CTO PCI procedures (0.4% in 2020 and 7% in 2022; p for trend 0.001). Mean patient age was 69 ± 11 years and 79% were men. The prevalence of hypertension (95%), diabetes mellitus (62%), and prior PCI (61%) was high. The most common target vessel was the right coronary artery (54%), followed by the left circumflex (23%). The mean J-CTO and PROGRESS-CTO scores were 2.8 ± 1.1 and 1.3 ± 1.0, respectively. Antegrade wiring was the final successful crossing strategy in 65% and the retrograde approach was used in 22%. IVL was used in 10% of all heavily calcified lesions and 11% of all balloon undilatable lesions. The 3.5 mm lithotripsy balloon was the most commonly used balloon (28%). The mean number of pulses per lithotripsy run was 33 ± 32 and the median duration of lithotripsy was 80 (interquartile range: 40-103) seconds. Technical and procedural success was achieved in 77 (94%) and 74 (90%) cases, respectively. Two (2.4%) Ellis Class 2 perforations occurred after IVL use and were managed conservatively.IVL is increasingly being used in CTO PCI with encouraging outcomes.

The comparative efficacy and safety of parallel wiring versus antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial.We compared the clinical and angiographic characteristics and outcomes of parallel wiring versus ADR after failed antegrade wiring in a large, multicenter CTO PCI registry.A total of 1725 CTO PCI procedures with failed antegrade wiring with a single wire were approached with parallel wiring (692) or ADR (1033) at the discretion of the operator. ADR patients were older (65 ± 10 vs. 62 ± 10, years, p lt; 0.001) and had higher prevalence of comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus (43% vs. 32%, p lt; 0.001), prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (31% vs. 19%, p lt; 0.001), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (50 ± 14 vs. 53 ± 11%, p lt; 0.001). The ADR group had higher J-CTO (2.8 ± 1.1 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3, p lt; 0.001) and PROGRESS-CTO (1.6 ± 1.1 vs. 1.2 ± 1.0, p lt; 0.001) scores. Equipment use including guidewires, balloons, and microcatheters was higher, and the procedures lasted longer in the ADR group. Technical success (78% vs. 75%, p = 0.046) and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, emergency surgery or re-PCI, and pericardiocentesis) (3.7% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.029) were higher in the ADR group, with similar procedural success (75% vs. 73%, p = 0.166).In lesions that could not be crossed with antegrade wiring, ADR was associated with higher technical but not procedural success, and also higher MACE compared with parallel wiring.