RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The recent development and widespread adoption of antegrade dissection re-entry (ADR) techniques have been underlined as one of the antegrade strategies in all worldwide CTO consensus documents. However, historical wire-based ADR experience has suffered from disappointing long-term outcomes. AIMS: Compare technical success, procedural success, and long-term outcome of patients who underwent wire-based ADR technique versus antegrade wiring (AW). METHODS: One thousand seven hundred and ten patients, from the prospective European Registry of Chronic Total Occlusions (ERCTO), underwent 1806 CTO procedures between January 2018 and December 2021, at 13 high-volume ADR centers. Among all 1806 lesions attempted by the antegrade approach, 72% were approached with AW techniques and 28% with wire-based ADR techniques. RESULTS: Technical and procedural success rates were lower in wire-based ADR than in AW (90.3% vs. 96.4%, p < 0.001; 87.7% vs. 95.4%, p < 0.001, respectively); however, wire-based ADR was used successfully more often in complex lesions as compared to AW (p = 0.017). Wire-based ADR was used in most cases (85%) after failure of AW or retrograde procedures. At a mean clinical follow-up of 21 ± 15 months, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) did not differ between AW and wire-based ADR (12% vs. 15.1%, p = 0.106); both AW and wire-based ADR procedures were associated with significant symptom improvements. CONCLUSIONS: As compared to AW, wire-based ADR is a reliable and effective strategy successfully used in more complex lesions and often after the failure of other techniques. At long-term follow-up, patient's MACCEs and symptoms improvement were similar in both antegrade techniques.