Use of antegrade dissection re-entry in coronary chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention in a contemporary multicenter registry

Abstract

Background We assessed efficacy and safety of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using antegrade dissection re-entry (ADR). Methods We examined outcomes of ADR among 1,313 CTO PCIs performed at 11 US centers between 2012-2015. Results 84.1% of patients were men. Prevalence of prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery was 34.3%. Overall technical and procedural success were 90.1% and 88.7%, respectively. In-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred in 31 patients (2.4%). ADR was used in 458 cases (34.9%), and was the first strategy in 169 cases (12.9 %). ADR cases were angiographically more complex than non-ADR cases (mean J-CTO score: 2.8±1.2 vs. 2.4±1.2, p<0.001). ADR was performed using the CrossBoss catheter in 246 of 458 (53.7%) and the Stingray system in 251 ADR cases (54.8%). Compared with non-ADR cases, ADR cases had lower technical (86.9% vs. 91.8%, p=0.005) and procedural success (85.0% vs. 90.7%, p=0.002), but similar risk for MACE (2.9% vs. 2.2%, p=0.42). ADR was associated with longer procedure and fluoroscopy time, and higher patient air kerma dose and contrast volume (all p<0.001). After excluding retrograde cases, ADR and antegrade wire escalation (AWE) had similar technical success (92.7% vs. 94.2%, p=0.43) procedural success (91.8% vs. 94.1%, p=0.23), and MACE (2.1% vs. 0.6%, p=0.12). Conclusions ADR is used relatively frequently in contemporary CTO PCI, especially for challenging lesions and after failure of other strategies. ADR is associated with similar success rates and risk for complications as compared with AWE, and is important for achieving high procedural success.

Use of Intravascular Imaging During Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From a Contemporary Multicenter Registry

“…Data collection was performed both prospectively and retrospectively and was recorded in a dedicated online database (PROGRESS CTO: Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention, Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061436). [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The study was approved by the institutional review board of each site and a waiver of informed consent was obtained.…”

Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Evidence and Controversies

“…Danek et al69 reported use of ADR in 459 of 1313 CTO PCIs (34.9%) performed at 11 US centers between 2012 and 2105. ADR was more commonly performed using dedicated devices (CrossBoss, 53.7%; Stingray, 54.8%) and was associated with comparable technical success rate as AWE (92.7% versus 94.2%; P =0.43) and similar complication rates (2.1% versus 0.6%; P =0.12) 69…”

Antegrade fenestration and re‐entry: A new controlled subintimal technique for chronic total occlusion recanalization

“…Following the introduction of the CrossBoss/Stingray system (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA), the adoption and success rates of ADR‐based CTO PCI has increased . However, such approach is limited by high procedural costs, a steep learning curve, need for dedicated proctored training, and a non‐negligible rate of failure secondary to inability to re‐enter into the true lumen with the Stingray system (usually due to compressive subintimal hematoma).…”