Search

Background A hybrid approach to chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prioritizing and combining all available crossing techniques was developed to optimize procedural efficacy, efficiency, and safety, but there is limited published data on its outcomes. Methods We examined the procedural techniques and outcomes of 1036 consecutive CTO PCIs performed using a hybrid approach between 2012 and 2015 at 11 US centers. Results Mean age was 65 ± 10 years and 86% of the patients were men, with a high prevalence of diabetes mellitus (43%) and prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (34%). Most target CTOs were located in the right coronary artery (59%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (23%) and the circumflex (19%). Dual injection was used in 71%. Technical success was achieved in 91% and a major procedural complication occurred in 1.7% of cases. The final successful crossing technique was antegrade wire escalation in 46%, antegrade dissection/re-entry in 26%, and retrograde in 28%. The initial crossing strategy was successful in 58% of the lesions, whereas 39% required an additional approach. Overall, antegrade wire escalation was used in 71%, antegrade dissection/re-entry in 36%, and the retrograde approach in 42% of procedures. Median contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, and air kerma radiation dose were 260 (200–360) ml, 44 (27–72) min, and 3.4 (2.0–5.4) Gray, respectively. Conclusion Application of a hybrid approach to CTO crossing resulted in high success and low complication rates across a varied group of operators and hospital practice structures, supporting its expanding use in CTO PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We assessed efficacy and safety of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using antegrade dissection re-entry (ADR). Methods We examined outcomes of ADR among 1313 CTO PCIs performed at 11 US centers between 2012–2015. Results 84.1% of patients were men. Prevalence of prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery was 34.3%. Overall technical and procedural success were 90.1% and 88.7%, respectively. In-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred in 31 patients (2.4%). ADR was used in 458 cases (34.9%), and was the first strategy in 169 cases (12.9%). ADR cases were angiographically more complex than non-ADR cases (mean J-CTO score: 2.8 ± 1.2 vs. 2.4 ± 1.2, p < 0.001). ADR was performed using the CrossBoss catheter in 246 of 458 (53.7%) and the Stingray system in 251 ADR cases (54.8%). Compared with non-ADR cases, ADR cases had lower technical (86.9% vs. 91.8%, p = 0.005) and procedural success (85.0% vs. 90.7%, p = 0.002), but similar risk for MACE (2.9% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.42). ADR was associated with longer procedure and fluoroscopy time, and higher patient air kerma dose and contrast volume (all p < 0.001). After excluding retrograde cases, ADR and antegrade wire escalation (AWE) had similar technical success (92.7% vs. 94.2%, p = 0.43), procedural success (91.8% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.23), and MACE (2.1% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.12). Conclusions ADR is used relatively frequently in contemporary CTO PCI, especially for challenging lesions and after failure of other strategies. ADR is associated with similar success rates and risk for complications as compared with AWE, and is important for achieving high procedural success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]