Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Antegrade and Retrograde Techniques for Chronic Total Occlusion Revascularizations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Chronic total occlusions (CTOs) present significant challenges in interventional cardiology. This metaanalysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of retrograde versus antegrade techniques in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases were searched through June 20, 2024. Studies comparing outcomes between antegrade and retrograde methods for CTO-PCI were included. Primary outcomes were procedural and technical success. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. The final analysis included seventeen studies. The antegrade approach showed a 5% higher likelihood of technical success (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.09) and 14% higher odds of procedural success (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.10-1.19) compared to the retrograde approach. The antegrade group also demonstrated lower risks of MACE, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.26-0.63). This meta-analysis suggests that the antegrade approach in CTO-PCI is associated with higher success rates and lower risks of adverse outcomes compared to the retrograde approach. However, the retrograde technique remains crucial for complex lesions and patients with multiple comorbidities.