Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Jul 1;214:428-37. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.03.215. Epub 2016 Apr 6.

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

Author information

1
VA North Texas Healthcare System and UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.
2
Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
3
Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, United States.
4
Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
5
VA San Diego Healthcare System and University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
6
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
7
Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Torrance, CA, United States.
8
Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, United States.
9
Medical Center of the Rockies, Loveland, CO, United States.
10
Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, GA, United States.
11
Minneapolis VA Healthcare System and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
12
Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, United States.
13
VA North Texas Healthcare System and UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States. Electronic address: esbrilakis@gmail.com.

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 1313 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.

KEYWORDS:

Chronic total occlusion; Complications; Dissection and re-entry; Outcomes; Techniques

PMID:
27088405
PMCID:
PMC4862911
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.03.215
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center