Validation of the new PROGRESS-CTO complication risk scores in the OPEN-CTO registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification before chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important to inform procedural planning as well as patients and their families. We sought to externally validate the PROGRESS-CTO complication risk scores in the OPEN-CTO registry. METHODS: OPEN-CTO is a prospective registry of 1000 consecutive CTO PCIs performed at 12 experienced US centers using the hybrid algorithm. Endpoints of interest were in-hospital all-cause mortality, need for pericardiocentesis, acute myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, periprocedural MI, urgent repeat revascularization, and tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis). Model discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) method, and calibration with the observed-versus-predicted probability method. RESULTS: Mean age was 65.4 ± 10.3 year, and 36.5% of patients had prior coronary artery bypass graft. Overall, 41 patients (4.1%) suffered MACE, 9 (0.9%) mortality, 26 (2.6%) acute MI, and 11 (1.1%) required pericardiocentesis. Technical success was achieved in 86.3%. Patients who experienced MACE had higher anatomic complexity, and more often required antegrade dissection/reentry and the retrograde approach. Increasing PROGRESS-CTO MACE scores were associated with increasing MACE rates: 0.5% (score 0-1), 2.4% (score 2), 3.7% (score 3), 4.5% (score 4), 7.8% (score 5), 13.0% (score 6-7). The AUC were as follows: MACE 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.78), mortality 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.95), pericardiocentesis 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60-0.82), and acute MI 0.57 (95% CI: 0.49-0.66). Calibration was adequate for MACE and mortality, while the models underestimated the risk of pericardiocentesis and acute MI. CONCLUSIONS: In a large external cohort of patients treated with the hybrid algorithm by experienced CTO operators, the PROGRESS-CTO MACE, mortality, and pericardiocentesis risk scores showed good discrimination, while the acute MI score had inferior performance.

Development and validation of a prediction model for angiographic perforation during chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: OPEN-CLEAN perforation score.

BACKGROUND: Perforation is the most frequent complication of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is associated with adverse events including mortality. METHODS: Among 1,000 consecutive patients enrolled in 12 center prospective CTO PCI study (OPEN CTO), all perforations were reviewed by the angiographic core-lab. Eighty-nine patients (8.9%) with angiographic perforation were compared to 911 patients without perforation. We sought to describe the clinical and angiographic predictors of angiographic perforation during CTO PCI and develop a risk prediction model. RESULTS: Among eight clinically important candidate variables, independent risk factors for perforation included prior CABG (OR 2.0 [95% CI, 1.2-3.3], p < .01), occlusion length (OR 1.2 per 10 mm increase [95% CI, 1.1-1.3], p < .01), ejection fraction (OR 1.2 per 10% decrease [95% CI, 1.1-1.5], p < .01), age (OR 1.3 per 5 year increase [95%CI, 1.1-1.5], p < .01), and heavy calcification (OR 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-2.7], p = .04). Three other potential candidate variables, glomerular filtration rate, proximal cap ambiguity, and target vessel, were not independently associated with perforation. The model was internally validated using bootstrapping methods. From the full model, a simplified perforation prediction score (OPEN-CLEAN score: CABG, Length [occlusion], EF < 50%, Age, CalcificatioN) was developed, which discriminated the risk of angiographic perforation well (c-statistics = 0.75) and demonstrated good calibration. CONCLUSION: This simple 5-variable prediction score may help CTO operators to risk-stratify patients for angiographic perforation using variables available prior to CTO PCI procedures.

Correction to: ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease.

To more clearly reflect the relationship between iFR (instantaneous wave-free ratio) and FFR (fractional flow reserve), this Correction document highlights the following changes to the original document published in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology; the version available at JACC [1] has been updated to reflect the changes, with JACC's Correction document available at [2].

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing SIHD and acute coronary syndromes individually. This document presents the AUC for SIHD.Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice. These scenarios included information on symptom status; risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing; coronary disease burden; and, in some scenarios, fractional flow reserve testing, presence or absence of diabetes, and SYNTAX score. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt were affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization.A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with high symptom burden, high-risk features, and high coronary disease burden, as well as in patients receiving antianginal therapy, are deemed appropriate. Additionally, scenarios assessing the appropriateness of revascularization before kidney transplantation or transcatheter valve therapy are now rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

Anti-anginal medication titration among patients with residual angina 6-months after chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from OPEN CTO registry.

AIMS: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to reduce angina and improve quality of life, but the frequency of new or residual angina after CTO PCI and its relationship with titration of anti-anginal medications (AAMs) has not been described. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among consecutive CTO PCI patients treated at 12 US centres in the OPEN CTO registry, angina was assessed 6 months after the index PCI using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Angina Frequency scale (a score <100 defined new or residual angina). We then compared the proportion of patients with AAM escalation (defined as an increase in the number or dosage of AAMs between discharge and follow-up) between those with and without 6-month angina. Of 901 patients who underwent CTO PCI, 197 (21.9%) reported angina at 6-months, of whom 80 (40.6%) had de-escalation, 66 (33.5%) had no change, and only 51 (25.9%) had escalation of their AAM by the 6-month follow-up. Rates of AAM escalation were similar when stratifying patients by the ultimate success of the CTO PCI, completeness of physiologic revascularization, presence or absence of angina at baseline, history of heart failure, and by degree of symptomatic improvement after CTO PCI. CONCLUSIONS: One in five patients reported angina 6 months after CTO PCI. Although patients with new or residual angina were more likely to have escalation of AAMs in follow-up compared with those without residual symptoms, only one in four patients with residual angina had escalation of AAMs. Although it is unclear whether this finding reflects maximal tolerated therapy at baseline or therapeutic inertia, these findings suggest an important potential opportunity to further improve symptom control in patients with complex stable ischaemic heart disease.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non­ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.