Search

Advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) devices and techniques have expanded the pool of eligible patients for revascularization, including those with comorbidities, reduced left ventricular function, or anatomical complexity (defined as CHIP: complex and high-risk interventions in indicated patients). CHIP interventions are typically performed by selected operators who specialize in complex PCI. This review presents two cases performed in the USA, to discuss the similarities and differences in practice patterns between CHIP operators in Japan and the USA. The first case involves a 58-year-old male presenting with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, and the second case involves a 51-year-old female with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting presenting with a chronic total occlusion and PCI complicated by vessel perforation. The discussion focuses on appropriate patient selection, the role of the heart team approach for decision-making, the use of hemodynamic support devices, and other relevant factors. By comparing practices in Japan and the USA, this review highlights opportunities for knowledge exchange and potential areas for improving patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Davies reports speaking honoraria from Abiomed, Asahi Intec, Boston Sci, Medtronic, Shockwave, and Teleflex. She also serves on advisory boards for Abiomed, Avinger, Boston Sci, Medtronic, and Rampart. Dr. Kato has received honoraria for speaker from Abbott Medical Japan and Kaneka Medix. Dr. Maran is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Philips. Dr. Kearney reports consulting fees or honoraria from Asahi Intecc, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Philips, Medtronic, Teleflex, and Reflow medical. Dr. Kohsaka has received research grants from Novartis and AstraZeneca. Dr. Hirai received speaking honoraria from Abiomed and Asahi Intecc. He received institutional research grant from Abiomed and Asahi Intecc. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary artery perforation is a feared complication of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and often leads to serious adverse clinical events., Aims: We sought to develop a risk score to predict clinical coronary artery perforation in patients undergoing CTO PCI., Methods: We analysed clinical and angiographic parameters from 9,618 CTO PCIs in the Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO). Logistic regression prediction modelling was used to identify variables independently associated with clinical perforation, and the model was internally validated with bootstrapping. Clinical coronary artery perforation was defined as any perforation requiring treatment., Results: The incidence of clinical coronary perforation was 3.8% (n=367). Five factors were independently associated with perforation and were included in the score: patient age ≥65 years +1 point (odds ratio [OR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37-2.33), moderate/severe calcification +1 point (OR 1.85, 95% CI: 1.41-2.42), blunt/no stump +1 point (OR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10-1.92), use of antegrade dissection and re-entry +1 point (OR 2.43, 95% CI: 1.61-3.69), and use of the retrograde approach +2 points (OR 4.02, 95% CI: 2.95-5.46). The resulting score showed acceptable performance on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.741, 95% CI: 0.712-0.773). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated a good fit (p=0.991), and internal validation with bootstrapping demonstrated good agreement with the model with observed AUC: 0.736 (95% bias-corrected CI: 0.706-0.767)., Conclusions: The PROGRESS-CTO perforation score may be a useful tool for predicting clinical coronary perforation during CTO PCI.

Coronary artery perforation is a feared complication of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to describe the incidence, mechanisms, treatment, and outcomes of coronary artery perforation during CTO PCI. We analyzed the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and procedural outcomes of 10,454 CTO PCIs performed in 10,219 patients between 2012 and 2022. The incidence of coronary perforation was 4.9% (n = 503). Patients who experienced coronary perforation were older and were more likely to have had previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Procedures that resulted in perforation were more complex, with higher Japanese CTO and Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO) scores. Technical (66% vs 87%, p <0.001) and procedural (55% vs 87%, p <0.001) success rates were lower in perforation cases. The CTO target vessel was the most common perforation site (66%). The retrograde approach was responsible for the perforation in 47% of cases, and guidewire exit was the most common perforation mechanism. The proportion of Ellis class 1, 2, 3, and 3 -"cavity spilling" coronary perforations was 20%, 41%, 28%, and 11%, respectively. In 52% of perforations, 1 or more interventions were required: prolonged balloon inflation (23%), covered stent deployment (21%), coil embolization (6%), and/or autologous fat embolization (4%). Tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis occurred in 69 patients (14%). The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was higher in perforation cases (18% vs 1.3%, p <0.001). In conclusion, coronary artery perforation occurred in 4.9% of CTO PCIs performed by experienced operators and was associated with lower technical success and higher in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr. Alaswad: Consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific, Abbott Cardiovascular, Teleflex, and Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. Dr. Karmpaliotis: Honoraria - Boston Scientific and Abbot Vascular; Equity: Saranas, Soundbite, Traverse Vascular. Dr. Jaffer: Sponsored research: Canon, Siemens, Shockwave, Teleflex, Mercator, and Boston Scientific; Consultant: Boston Scientific, Siemens, Magenta Medical, International Medical Device Solutions, Asahi Intecc, Biotronik, Philips, Intravascular Imaging Inc. Equity interest: Intravascular Imaging Inc, DurVena. Massachusetts General Hospital - licensing arrangements: Terumo, Canon, and Spectrawave, for which Dr. Jaffer has the right to receive royalties. Dr. Khatri: Personal Honoria for proctoring and speaking: Abbott Vascular, Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd., Terumo, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Poommipanit: Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd., Abbott, Vascular-Consultant. Dr. Jaber: Medtronic and proctoring fees from Abbott. Dr. Rinfret: Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific Corporation, SoundBite Medical, Teleflex consultant. Dr. Nicholson: Is a proctor and on the speakers' bureau and the advisory board for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd.; he reports intellectual property with Vascular Solutions. Dr. Patel: Consulting Honoraria from Abbott, Medtronic, Terumo, and Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. Dr. Mahmud: Consultant for Abiomed, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific, and chairs multiple Data, Safety, and Monitoring Boards. Dr. Davies: Honoraria from Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd., Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Siemens Healthineers, in addition to being a member of an advisory board for Shockwave Medical. Dr. Kerrigan: Consultant to Abiomed, Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd., Biotronik, Cordis, Boston Scientific, Ischemaview Inc., Osprey Medical, Penumbra, Philips, and Teleflex. Dr. Abi-Rafeh: Proctor and speaker honoraria for Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr. ElGuindy: Consulting honoraria: Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd., Abbott; Proctorship fees: Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd., and Terumo; Educational grants: Medtronic. Dr. Brilakis: Consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (Associate Editor: Circulation), Amgen, Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd., Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), ControlRad, CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, IMDS, InfraRedx, Medicure, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, and Teleflex; Research support: Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare; owner at Hippocrates LLC; shareholder at Minneapolis Heart Institute Ventures, Cleerly Health, and Stallion Medical. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Access to the arterial system through the distal or dorsal terminal end of the radial artery has recently been developed for interventional and diagnostic procedures. This technique may offer some advantages for specific patient subsets over the traditional radial approach. It may also offer advantages to the operator especially when using the left radial artery. The approach to successful dorsal radial access is described along with hemostasis. Although significant adverse events have not been described in the literature or on social media, several potential areas for vigilance are mentioned., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The goal of this article is to review the disparities that exist for women who present for treatment of ischemic heart disease., Recent Findings: It is well known that women are more likely to present with ischemic heart disease at an advanced age with more comorbidities when compared to male counterparts. Despite correction of risk factors, women experience worse outcomes, even in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. A review of the literature highlights the importance of a thoughtful approach to medical therapy and revascularization. While most recommendations applied to women are derived mostly from male data, further study of sex-specific differences may lead to approaches which can ultimately reduce disparities for the treatment of ischemic heart disease in women.

The aim of this study was to compare clinically relevant cardiovascular outcomes and downstream resource utilization associated with stress echocardiography (SE) and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain. This was a retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data for a national sample of privately insured patients over the period January 1 to December 31, 2011. Subjects were selected who presented to the emergency department with a primary or secondary diagnosis of chest pain and underwent either SE or MPI. The primary end points were the percentage of patients in each group who underwent downstream cardiac catheterization, revascularization, repeat noninvasive testing, return emergency department visit with chest pain, and hospitalization for myocardial infarction. The mean length of follow-up was 190 days in both groups. Overall, 48,202 patients or 24,101 propensity-matched pairs were included in the final analysis. Compared with SE, MPI was associated with significantly higher odds of subsequent cardiac catheterization (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99 to 2.33) and revascularization procedures (AOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.85) and repeat emergency department visits (AOR 1.14; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.19). The odds of repeat testing and myocardial infarction did not differ between groups. The average cost of downstream care was significantly higher in the MPI group ($2,193.80 vs $1,631.10, p <0.0001). According to the a priori rules specified for this comparative analysis, SE is more effective than MPI for privately insured patients who present to the emergency department with chest pain. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate the importance of assessing diagnostic tests based on how they affect hard end points because identification of disease, in and of itself, may not confer any clinical advantage., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is limited data on predicting successful chronic total occlusion crossing using primary antegrade wiring (AW). The aim of this study was to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) prognostic model for successful chronic total occlusion crossing using primary AW. We used data from 12,136 primary AW cases performed between 2012 and 2023 at 48 centers in the PROGRESS CTO registry (Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention; NCT02061436) to develop 5 ML models. Hyperparameter tuning was performed for the model with the best performance, and the SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) explainer was implemented to estimate feature importance. Primary AW was successful in 6,965 cases (57.4%). Extreme gradient boosting was the best performing ML model with an average area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.775 (± 0.010). After hyperparameter tuning, the average area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of the extreme gradient boosting model was 0.782 in the training set and 0.780 in the testing set. Among the factors examined, occlusion length had the most significant impact on predicting successful primary AW crossing followed by blunt/no stump, presence of interventional collaterals, vessel diameter, and proximal cap ambiguity. In contrast, aorto-ostial lesion location had the least impact on the outcome. A web-based application for predicting successful primary AW wiring crossing is available online (PROGRESS-CTO website) (https://www.progresscto.org/predict-aw-success). We developed an ML model with 14 features and high predictive capacity for successful primary AW in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contemporary frequency and outcomes of antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have received limited study. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and outcomes of ADR use in a large multicenter CTO PCI registry. The characteristics and outcomes of ADR were examined among 12,568 patients who underwent 12,841 CTO PCIs at 46 U.S. and non-U.S. centers between 2012 and 2023. ADR was used in 2,385 of the procedures (18.6%). ADR use declined from 37.9% in 2012 to 14.5% in 2022 (P < 0.001). Patients in whom ADR was used had a high prevalence of comorbidities. Compared with cases that did not use ADR, ADR cases had more complex angiographic characteristics, higher mean J-CTO (Multicenter CTO Registry in Japan) score (2.94 ± 1.11 vs 2.23 ± 1.26; P < 0.001), lower technical success (77.0% vs 89.3%; P < 0.001), and higher in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (3.7% vs 1.6%; P < 0.001). The use of the CrossBoss declined from 71% in 2012 to 1.4% in 2022 and was associated with higher technical success (87%) compared with wire-based techniques (73%). The Stingray device displayed higher technical success (86%) compared with subintimal tracking and re-entry (STAR) (74%) and limited antegrade subintimal tracking (78%); however, its use has been decreasing, with STAR becoming the most used re-entry technique in 2022 (44% STAR vs 38% Stingray). The use of ADR has been decreasing. ADR was used in more complex lesions and was associated with lower technical success and higher major adverse cardiac events compared with non-ADR cases. There has been a decrease in Stingray use and an increase in the use of STAR for re-entry. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retrograde chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower success and higher complication rates when compared with the antegrade approach. This study sought to assess contemporary techniques and outcomes of retrograde CTO PCI. We examined the baseline characteristics, procedural techniques and outcomes of 4,058 retrograde CTO PCIs performed at 44 centers between 2012 and 2023. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) included any of the following in-hospital events: death, myocardial infarction, repeat target vessel revascularization, pericardiocentesis, cardiac surgery, and stroke. The average J-CTO (Multicenter CTO Registry in Japan) score was 3.1 ± 1.1. Retrograde crossing was successful in 60.5% and lesion crossing in 81.6% of cases. The collaterals pathways successfully used were septals in 62.0%, saphenous vein grafts in 17.4%, and epicardials in 19.1%. The technical and procedural success rates were 78.7% and 76.6%, respectively. When retrograde crossing failed, technical success was achieved in 50.3% of cases using the antegrade approach. In-hospital MACE was 3.5%. The clinical coronary perforation rate was 5.8%. The incidence of in-hospital MACE with retrograde true lumen crossing, just marker antegrade crossing, conventional reverse controlled antegrade and retrograde tracking (CART), contemporary reverse CART, extended reverse CART, guide-extension reverse CART, and CART was 2.1%, 0.8%, 5.5%, 3.0%, 2.1%, 3.2%, and 4.1%, respectively; P = 0.01). Retrograde CTO PCI is utilized in highly complex cases and yields moderate success rates with 5.8% perforation and 3.5% periprocedural MACE rates. Among retrograde crossing strategies, retrograde true lumen puncture was the safest. There is need for improvement of the efficacy and safety of retrograde CTO PCI. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]