Loading…

Procedural failure of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from a multicenter US registry

Background The hybrid approach to chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has significantly increased procedural success rates, yet some cases still fail. We sought to evaluate the causes of failure in a contemporary CTO PCI registry. Methods We examined 380 consecutiv...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2015-06, Vol.85 (7), p.1115-1122
Main Authors: Sapontis, James, Christopoulos, Georgios, Grantham, J. Aaron, Wyman, R. Michael, Alaswad, Khaldoon, Karmpaliotis, Dimitri, Lombardi, William L., McCabe, James M., Marso, Steven P., Kotsia, Anna P., Rangan, Bavana V., Christakopoulos, Georgios E., Garcia, Santiago, Thompson, Craig A., Banerjee, Subhash, Brilakis, Emmanouil S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The hybrid approach to chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has significantly increased procedural success rates, yet some cases still fail. We sought to evaluate the causes of failure in a contemporary CTO PCI registry. Methods We examined 380 consecutive patients who underwent CTO‐PCI at 4 high volume CTO PCI centers in the United States using the “hybrid” approach. Clinical, angiographic, complication, and efficiency outcomes were compared between successful and failed cases. Failed cases were individually reviewed by an independent reviewer to determine the cause of failure. Results Procedural success was 91.3%. Compared with patients in whom CTO PCI was successful, those in whom CTO PCI failed had similar baseline clinical characteristics, but were more likely to have longer occlusion length, more tortuosity, more proximal cap ambiguity and blunt stump, and higher mean J‐CTO scores (2.8 ± 1.1 vs. 3.5 ± 1.0, P 
ISSN:1522-1946
1522-726X
DOI:10.1002/ccd.25807