4.6 Article

Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Chronic Total Occlusion Performed by Highly Experienced Japanese Specialists The First Report From the Japanese CTO-PCI Expert Registry

Journal

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Volume 10, Issue 21, Pages 2144-2154

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.06.024

Keywords

chronic total occlusion; percutaneous coronary intervention; retrograde approach

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES This report describes the registry and presents an initial analysis of outcomes for the different PCI approaches taken by the specialists.& para;& para;BACKGROUNDS Strategies for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) are complex. The Japanese Board of CTO Interventional Specialists has developed a prospective, nonrandomized registry of patients undergoing CTO-PCIs performed by 41 highly experienced Japanese specialists.& para;& para;METHODS Over the study period of January 2014 to December 2015, the registry included 2,846 consecutive CTO-PCI cases undertaken in Japan. The authors compared clinical outcomes between the different PCI approaches, following the intention-to-treat principle.& para;& para;RESULT The overall technical success rate of the procedures was 89.9%. The specialists frequently chose a retrograde approach as the primary CTO-PCI strategy (in 27.8% of cases). The technical success rate of the primary antegrade approach was significantly better than that of the primary retrograde approach (91.0% vs. 87.3%; p < 0.0001). The technical success rate decreased to 78.0% with the rescue retrograde approach. Parallel guidewire crossing and intra vascular ultrasound-guided wire crossing were performed after guidewire escalation during antegrade CTO-PCI with a high technical success rate (75.0% to 88.9%). Severe lesion calcification was a strong predictor of failed CTO-PCI.& para;& para;CONCLUSION CTO-PCI performed by highly experienced specialists achieved a high technical success rate. (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available