Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery after chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PROGRESS-CTO registry.

BACKGROUND: Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery (eCABG) is a serious complication of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI). METHODS: We examined the incidence and outcomes eCABG among 14,512 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2023 in a large multicenter registry. RESULTS: The incidence of eCABG was 0.12% (n = 17). Mean age was 68 ± 6 years and 69% of the patients were men. The most common reason for eCABG was coronary perforation (70.6%). eCABG patients had larger target vessel diameter (3.36 ± 0.50 vs. 2.90 ± 0.52; p = 0.003), were more likely to have moderate/severe calcification (85.7% vs. 45.8%; p = 0.006), side branch at the proximal cap (91.7% vs. 55.4%; p = 0.025), and balloon undilatable lesions (50% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.001) and to have undergone retrograde crossing (64.7% vs. 30.8%, p = 0.006). eCABG cases had lower technical (35.3% vs. 86.7%; p < 0.001) and procedural (35.3% vs. 86.7%; p < 0.001) success and higher in-hospital mortality (35.3% vs. 0.4%; p < 0.001), coronary perforation (70.6% vs. 4.6%; p < 0.001), pericardiocentesis (47.1% vs. 0.8%; p < 0.001), and major bleeding (11.8% vs. 0.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of eCABG after CTO PCI was 0.12% and associated with high in-hospital mortality (35%). Coronary perforation was the most common reason for eCABG.

Angiographic Features and Clinical Outcomes of Balloon Uncrossable Lesions during Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: Balloon uncrossable lesions are defined as lesions that cannot be crossed with a balloon after successful guidewire crossing. Methods: We analyzed the association between balloon uncrossable lesions and procedural outcomes of 8671 chronic total occlusions (CTOs) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed between 2012 and 2022 at 41 centers. Results: The prevalence of balloon uncrossable lesions was 9.2%. The mean patient age was 64.2 ± 10 years and 80% were men. Patients with balloon uncrossable lesions were older (67.3 ± 9 vs. 63.9 ± 10, p < 0.001) and more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (40% vs. 25%, p < 0.001) and diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 42%, p < 0.001) compared with patients who had balloon crossable lesions. In-stent restenosis (23% vs. 16%. p < 0.001), moderate/severe calcification (68% vs. 40%, p < 0.001), and moderate/severe proximal vessel tortuosity (36% vs. 25%, p < 0.001) were more common in balloon uncrossable lesions. Procedure time (132 (90, 197) vs. 109 (71, 160) min, p < 0.001) was longer and the air kerma radiation dose (2.55 (1.41, 4.23) vs. 1.97 (1.10, 3.40) min, p < 0.001) was higher in balloon uncrossable lesions, while these lesions displayed lower technical (91% vs. 99%, p < 0.001) and procedural (88% vs. 96%, p < 0.001) success rates and higher major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates (3.14% vs. 1.49%, p < 0.001). Several techniques were required for balloon uncrossable lesions. Conclusion: In a contemporary, multicenter registry, 9.2% of the successfully crossed CTOs were initially balloon uncrossable. Balloon uncrossable lesions exhibited lower technical and procedural success rates and a higher risk of complications compared with balloon crossable lesions.

Single vs. multiple operators for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary interventions: From the PROGRESS-CTO Registry.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the impact of a second attending operator on chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed the association between multiple operators (MOs) (>1 attending operator) and procedural outcomes of 9296 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2021 at 37 centers. RESULTS: CTO PCI was performed by a single operator (SO) in 85% of the cases and by MOs in 15%. Mean patient age was 64.4 ± 10 years and 81% were men. SO cases were more complex with higher Japan-CTO (2.38 ± 1.29 vs. 2.28 ± 1.20, p = 0.005) and Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention scores (1.13 ± 1.01 vs. 0.97 ± 0.93, p < 0.001) compared with MO cases. Procedural time (131 [87, 181] vs. 112 [72, 167] min, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (49 [31, 76] vs. 42 [25, 68] min, p < 0.001), air kerma radiation dose (2.32 vs. 2.10, p < 0.001), and contrast volume (230 vs. 210, p < 0.001) were higher in MO cases. Cases performed by MOs and SO had similar technical (86% vs. 86%, p = 0.9) and procedural success rates (84% vs. 85%, p = 0.7), as well as major adverse complication event rates (MACE 2.17% vs. 2.42%, p = 0.6). On multivariable analyses, MOs were not associated with higher technical success or lower MACE rates. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary, multicenter registry, 15% of CTO PCI cases were performed by multiple operators. Despite being more complex, SO cases had lower procedural and fluoroscopy times, and similar technical and procedural success and risk of complications compared with MO cases.

Use of the Limited Antegrade Subintimal Tracking Technique in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the limited antegrade subintimal tracking (LAST) technique for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the frequency of use and outcomes of the LAST technique for CTO PCI. METHODS: We analyzed 2,177 CTO PCIs performed using antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) in the PROGRESS-CTO (Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention) registry between 2012 and January 2022 at 39 centers. ADR was attempted in 1,465 cases (67.3%). RESULTS: Among antegrade re-entry cases, LAST was used in 163 (11.1%) (primary LAST in 127 [8.7%] and secondary LAST [LAST after other ADR approaches failed] in 36 [2.5%]), the Stingray system (Boston Scientific) in 980 (66.9%), subintimal tracking and re-entry in 387 (26.4%), and contrast-guided subintimal tracking and re-entry in 29 (2.0%). The mean patient age was 65.2 ± 10 years, and 85.8% were men. There was no significant difference in technical (71.8% vs 77.8%; P = 0.080) and procedural (69.9% vs 75.3%; P = 0.127) success and major cardiac adverse events (1.84% vs 3.53%; P = 0.254) between LAST and non-LAST cases. However, on multivariable analysis, the use of LAST was associated with lower procedural success (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41-0.91). Primary LAST was associated with higher technical (76.4% vs 55.6%; P = 0.014) and procedural (75.6% vs 50.0%; P = 0.003) success and similar major adverse cardiac event (1.57% vs 2.78%; P = 0.636) rates compared with secondary LAST. CONCLUSIONS: LAST was used in 11.1% of antegrade re-entry CTO PCI cases and was associated with lower procedural success on multivariable analysis, suggesting a limited role of LAST in contemporary CTO PCI.

Association of Annual Operator Volume With the Outcomes of Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: There are limited data on the association of operator volume with the outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We analyzed the association between operator volume and procedural outcomes of 7035 CTO-PCIs performed between 2012 and February 2021 at 30 centers. RESULTS: The study population was divided into 3 groups based on annual operator CTO-PCI volume: low-volume operators (LVO: <30 cases/year; 39.7% of the cases); medium-volume operators (MVO: 30-60 cases/year; 25.7% of the cases); and high-volume operators (HVO: >60 cases/ year; 34.6% of the cases). Mean patient age was 64.4 ± 10 years and 82% were men. Cases performed by HVOs were more complex, with higher J-CTO score compared with cases performed by MVOs and LVOs (2.72 ± 1.27 vs 2.39 ± 1.19 vs 2.12 ± 1.27, respectively; P<.001). Moderate/severe proximal vessel tortuosity (35% vs 23% vs 20%; P<.001) and proximal cap ambiguity (44% vs 34% vs 32%; P<.001) was also more common in the HVO group. Cases performed by HVOs had higher technical success rates (87.9% vs 86.9% vs 82.6%; P<.001), but also higher rates of periprocedural major cardiac adverse events compared with MVOs and LVOs (3.08% vs 2.71% vs 1.50%; P<.01). On multivariable analyses, HVOs and MVOs were associated with higher technical success. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary, multicenter registry, 40% of CTO-PCI cases are performed by LVOs performing <30 cases per year. Cases performed by HVOs were associated with higher technical and procedural success, but also higher periprocedural major complication rates, potentially due to higher lesion complexity.

Primary vs Secondary Retrograde Approach in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

BACKGROUND: The retrograde approach to coronary chronic total occlusions (CTOs) can be used as the initial crossing strategy (primary retrograde) or after failure of antegrade crossing attempts (secondary retrograde). METHODS: We compared baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and procedural outcomes of primary vs secondary retrograde crossing for CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among 2789 procedures performed at 34 centers between 2012 and 2021. RESULTS: Retrograde CTO-PCI was performed as the primary crossing strategy in 1086 cases (38.9%) and as a secondary approach in 1703 cases (61.1%). Patients in the primary group had slightly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (49.1% vs 50.4%; P=.02), were more likely to have had prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (52.9% vs 38.4%; P<.001), and had higher J-CTO (3.31 ± 0.98 vs 2.99 ± 1.09; P<.001) and PROGRESS-CTO scores (1.47 ± 0.92 vs 1.29 ± 0.99; P<.001). Technical (81.4% vs 77.3%; P=.01) and procedural success rates (78.6% vs 74.1%; P<.01) were higher in the primary retrograde group, with no difference between in-hospital major adverse event rates (4.3% vs 4.0%; P=.66). Contrast volume (250 mL [interquartile range (IQR), 176-347] vs 270 mL [IQR, 190-367]; P<.001) and procedure time (175 minutes [IQR, 127-233] vs 180 minutes [IQR, 142-236]; P<.001) were lower in the primary group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of retrograde approach as the primary crossing strategy is associated with higher rates of technical and procedural success and similar rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events compared with secondary retrograde CTO-PCI.

Antegrade dissection and re-entry versus parallel wiring in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PROGRESS-CTO registry.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 < 0.001) and had higher prevalence of comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus (43% vs. 32%, p < 0.001), prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (31% vs. 19%, p < 0.001), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (50 ± 14 vs. 53 ± 11%, p < 0.001). The ADR group had higher J-CTO (2.8 ± 1.1 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3, p < 0.001) and PROGRESS-CTO (1.6 ± 1.1 vs. 1.2 ± 1.0, p < 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

Radial access for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PROGRESS-CTO registry.

Use of radial access for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been increasing. We examined the clinical characteristics and procedural outcomes of patients who underwent CTO PCI with radial versus femoral access in the Prospective Global Registry for the Study of CTO Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO, NCT02061436). Of 10,954 patients who underwent CTO PCI at 55 centers in 7 countries between 2012 and 2022, 2578 (24%) had a radial only approach. Patients who underwent radial only access were younger (63 ± 10 vs. 65 ± 10, years, p &lt; 0.001), more likely to be men (84% vs. 81%, p = 0.001), and had significantly lower prevalence of comorbidities compared with the femoral access group including diabetes mellitus (39% vs. 45%, p &lt; 0.001) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (57% vs. 64%, p &lt; 0.001). In addition, radial only cases had lower angiographic complexity with lower J-CTO and PROGRESS-CTO scores. After adjusting for potential confounders, radial only access was associated with lower risk of access site complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.91), similar technical success (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74-1.04) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.40-1.07), compared with the femoral access group. Radial only access was used in 24% of CTO PCIs and was associated with lower access site complications, and similar technical success and MACE as compared with the femoral access group.

Procedural and In-Hospital Outcomes of Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From a Prospective Multicenter International Registry.

BACKGROUND: We sought to examine the procedural and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: We assessed the clinical and procedural characteristics, technical success, procedural success, and in-hospital outcomes of 2314 patients who underwent CTO-PCI at 20 experienced centers between 2012 and 2017, classified according to whether or not they presented with AMI. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 65 ± 10 years, 85% were men, and 154 (6.7%) presented with AMI (5.5% with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, 1.1% with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction). Compared with non-AMI patients who underwent CTO-PCI, AMI patients had higher prevalence of diabetes (56% vs 42%; P<.01) and lower median left ventricular ejection fraction (48% vs 54%; P<.001). The CTO angiographic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with non-AMI patients undergoing CTO-PCI, AMI patients had more frequent use of antegrade wire escalation (86.0% vs 78.9%; P=.03) and more frequent use of hemodynamic support devices (16.2% vs 3.4%; P<.01), and were more likely to have a non-CTO lesion treated (34.0% vs 26.6%; P=.03). AMI and non-AMI patients had similar technical success (90% vs 87%; P=.26), procedural success (88% vs 85%; P=.38), and incidence of in-hospital MACE (2.6% vs 2.5%; P=.94). CONCLUSION: CTO-PCI is performed infrequently in AMI patients and is associated with similar technical and procedural success rates and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event rates when compared with CTO-PCI performed in non-AMI patients.

Distal Radial Access in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the PROGRESS-CTO Registry.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of distal radial access (dRA) in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO-PCI) have received limited study. METHODS: We compared the clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of 120 CTO-PCIs performed via dRA access with 2625 CTO-PCIs performed via proximal radial access (pRA) in a large, multicenter registry. RESULTS: The dRA group had lower mean PROGRESS-CTO score than the pRA group (1.0 ± 1 vs 1.2 ± 1, respectively; P=.05), while J-CTO score (2.4 ± 1.2 vs 2.3 ± 1.3; P=.43) and PROGRESS-CTO Complications score (2.8 ± 1.8 vs 2.6 ± 1.9; P=.16) were similar in the dRA vs pRA groups, respectively. Technical success was similar in the 2 groups (90% dRA vs 86% pRA; P=.14). Concomitant use of femoral access did not alter procedural success. The incidence of major periprocedural adverse cardiac events was similar in the 2 groups (0.8% dRA vs 2.4% pRA; P=.26), whereas the incidence of tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis was lower with dRA (0% dRA vs 4.69% pRA; P<.001), as was air kerma radiation dose (median, 1.7 Gy; interquartile range [IQR], 0.97-2.63 Gy in the dRA group vs median, 2.27 Gy; IQR, 1.2-3.9 Gy in the pRA group; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of dRA in CTO-PCI is associated with similar procedural success and risk of complications as compared with pRA.