4.3 Article

Prevalence and Management of Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions in a Tertiary Veterans Affairs Hospital

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.25264

关键词

coronary occlusion; percutaneous coronary intervention; coronary artery disease

资金

  1. Cardiovascular Training, NIH [T32HL007360]
  2. Boston Scientific
  3. Guerbet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We sought to determine the contemporary prevalence and management of coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) in a veteran population. Background: The prevalence and management of CTOs in various populations has received limited study. Methods: We collected clinical and angiographic data in consecutive patients that underwent coronary angiography at our institution between January 2011 and December 2012. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined as >= 50% diameter stenosis in >= 1 coronary artery. CTO was defined as total coronary artery occlusion of >= 3 month duration. Results: Among 1,699 patients who underwent angiography during the study period, 20% did not have CAD, 20% had CAD and prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), and 60% had CAD but no prior CABG. The prevalence of CTO among CAD patients with and without prior CABG was 89 and 31%, respectively. Compared to patients without CTO, CTO patients had more co-morbidities, more extensive CAD and were more frequently referred for CABG. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to any vessel was performed with similar frequency in patients with and without CTO (50% vs. 53%). CTO PCI was performed in 30% of patients without and 15% of patients with prior CABG with high technical (82 and 75%, respectively) and procedural success rates (80 and 73%, respectively). Conclusions: In a contemporary veteran population, coronary CTOs are highly prevalent and are associated with more extensive comorbidities and higher likelihood for CABG referral. PCI was equally likely to be performed in patients with and without CTO. (C) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据