Outcomes of contemporary versus conventional reverse controlled and antegrade and retrograde subintimal tracking in chronic total occlusion revascularization. Issue 2 (17th November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Xu, Rende; Shi, Yuekai; Chang, Shufu; Qin, Qing; Li, Chenguang; Fu, Mingqiang; Ge, Lei; Qian, Juying; Ma, Jianying; Ge, Junbo
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 99:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 226
• Page End: 233
• Publication Date: 2021-11-17
• Subjects: CLIN–clinical trials -- COMI–complications -- CTO–percutaneous coronary intervention -- PCI; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30018
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions remain technically challenging for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The introduction of a retrograde approach has allowed marked improvement in the success rate of CTO recanalization. Reverse controlled anterograde and retrograde sub‐intimal tracking (reverse CART) is the predominant retrograde wire crossing technique and can be broadly classified into three categories: (1) conventional (2) contemporary and (3) extended. The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional and contemporary reverse CART techniques. Methods: From March 2015 to May 2020, 303 patients achieving successful retrograde guidewire crossing with conventional or contemporary reverse CART during CTO PCI were included in the study. The patient characteristics, procedural outcomes and in‐hospital and 1‐year clinical events were compared between the conventional and contemporary groups. Results: The distributions of the baseline and angiographic characteristics were similar in both study arms, except the CTO lesions of the conventional group were more complex, as reflected by borderline significantly higher mean J‐CTO scores (3.4 ± 0.7 vs. 3.3 ± 0.8; p = 0.059). Recanalization using contemporary reverse CART was associated with a short procedure time (189.8 ± 44.4 vs. 181.7 ± 37.3 min; p = 0.044) and decreased procedural complications, particularly target vessel perforation (3.6% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.063) and major side‐branch occlusion (36.7% vs. 28.0%; p = 0.051). Technical and procedural success and the in‐hospital and 1‐year outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusions: Contemporary reverse CART is associated with favorably high efficiency and low‐complication rates and carries a comparable success rate and 1‐year clinical outcomes as conventional reverse CART.