Rinfret, Stéphane

Background: Predicting technical failure in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can assist with decision making and planning of the procedure. Methods: We analyzed 6,946 CTO PCIs performed between 2016 and June 2022 at 36 international centers in the Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO) and created a score for risk of technical failure. Logistic regression prediction modeling was used to identify independently associated variables with technical failure and model were internally validated with bootstrapping. Results: Mean patient age was 64.0±10 years, 82% were men and technical success was 86%. The following variables were independently associated with technical failure and were included in the final model: age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.08, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: [1.00-1.15], p=0.039; age≥ 65 years; 1 point), CTO length (OR: 1.13, 95% CI [1.10, 1.17]; length≥ 20 mm; 1 point), moderate/severe calcification (OR: 1.35, 95% CI [1.17, 1.56]; 1 point), proximal cap ambiguity (OR: 2.25, 95% CI [1.95, 2.59]; 2 points), lack of interventional collaterals (OR: 1.60, 95% CI [1.39, 1.84]; 1 point), and lack of good distal landing zone (OR: 1.51, 95% CI [1.31, 1.75]; 1 point). The resulting score showed acceptable performance on receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, AUC: 0.68 (95% CI [0.67-0.71]). Internal validation with bootstrapping of 1000 samples demonstrated a good agreement with the model, observed AUC: 0.68, (95% bias corrected CI [0.67, 0.70]). PROGRESS-CTO technical failure score and corresponding risk percentage and the percentage of patients in the respective risk group within the PROGRESS-CTO registry are represented in Figure 1. Conclusion: The updated PROGRESS CTO score may be useful for assessing the likelihood of technical failure success in CTO PCI.

Background: Radial access (RA) is increasingly used in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention with encouraging results. However, there are concerns about its safety and efficacy because of higher complexity and the need for strong guide catheter support. Methods and Results: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published through November 2018 reporting the outcomes of RA versus femoral access in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcomes included major bleeding, access-site complications, in-hospital major adverse events, and technical success. Nine observational studies with 10 590 patients (10 617 lesions) were included in the meta-analysis. CTO lesions attempted using RA had lower Japan-CTO score (2.3±1.2 versus 2.5±1.3; P <0.001). Use of RA was associated with similar technical success (78.7% versus 78.5%; odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P =0.24; I 2 =23%), lower risk of access-site complications (0.73% versus 1.79%; odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22–0.51; P <0.001; I 2 =0%) and major bleeding (0.18% versus 0.9%; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10–0.45; P <0.001; I 2 =0%), and similar risk of in-hospital adverse events and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.12–1.07; P =0.07; I 2 =0%) as compared to femoral access. Results were similar when analyzing radial-only versus any femoral access and when excluding the largest study. Conclusions: As compared with femoral access, RA is used in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of less complex lesions and is associated with fewer access-site complications and major bleeding and comparable technical success.