open access

Ahead of print
Original Article
Published online: 2021-02-05
Get Citation

In-hospital outcome of re-attempted percutaneous coronary interventions for chronic total occlusion

Jan-Erik Guelker, Christian Blockhaus, Alexander Bufe, Knut Kroeger, Julian Kürvers, Dimitrios Ilousis, Kambis Mashayekhi
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2021.0012
·
Pubmed: 33634842

open access

Ahead of print
Original articles
Published online: 2021-02-05

Abstract

Background: With the advent of novel recanalization techniques and emerging devices, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become a promising leading treatment option for patients with chronic total occlusions (CTO). The present study aims to evaluate the acute outcomes of PCI in previously failed re-attempted vs. first-attempted CTO-lesions. Methods: Between 2012 and 2019, 619 patients were included and treated with PCI of at least one CTO. 253 patients were re-attempted lesions, while 366 were initially attempted lesions. Results: Re-attempted lesions were more complex, including higher Japanese-CTO (J-CTO) score and the need for a retrograde approach. The procedure time and fluoroscopy time were longer in this group. Nevertheless, overall success rates were comparable between both groups of patients. In-hospital events were rare and without significant differences. Conclusions: Re-attempted CTO lesions are more complex than first-attempt lesions and are associated with longer procedural times. However, they can be safely intervened by experienced operators with a similar success rate.

Abstract

Background: With the advent of novel recanalization techniques and emerging devices, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become a promising leading treatment option for patients with chronic total occlusions (CTO). The present study aims to evaluate the acute outcomes of PCI in previously failed re-attempted vs. first-attempted CTO-lesions. Methods: Between 2012 and 2019, 619 patients were included and treated with PCI of at least one CTO. 253 patients were re-attempted lesions, while 366 were initially attempted lesions. Results: Re-attempted lesions were more complex, including higher Japanese-CTO (J-CTO) score and the need for a retrograde approach. The procedure time and fluoroscopy time were longer in this group. Nevertheless, overall success rates were comparable between both groups of patients. In-hospital events were rare and without significant differences. Conclusions: Re-attempted CTO lesions are more complex than first-attempt lesions and are associated with longer procedural times. However, they can be safely intervened by experienced operators with a similar success rate.

Get Citation

Keywords

re-attempt, chronic total occlusion, coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention

About this article
Title

In-hospital outcome of re-attempted percutaneous coronary interventions for chronic total occlusion

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Ahead of print

Article type

Original Article

Published online

2021-02-05

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2021.0012

Pubmed

33634842

Keywords

re-attempt
chronic total occlusion
coronary artery disease
percutaneous coronary intervention

Authors

Jan-Erik Guelker
Christian Blockhaus
Alexander Bufe
Knut Kroeger
Julian Kürvers
Dimitrios Ilousis
Kambis Mashayekhi

References (35)
  1. Azzalini L, Jolicoeur EM, Pighi M, et al. Epidemiology, management strategies, and outcomes of patients with chronic total coronary occlusion. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 118(8): 1128–1135.
  2. Fefer P, Knudtson ML, Cheema AN, et al. Current perspectives on coronary chronic total occlusions: the Canadian Multicenter Chronic Total Occlusions Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(11): 991–997.
  3. Tomasello SD, Boukhris M, Giubilato S, et al. Management strategies in patients affected by chronic total occlusions: results from the Italian Registry of Chronic Total Occlusions. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(45): 3189–3198.
  4. Bufe A, Haltern G, Dinh W, et al. Recanalisation of coronary chronic total occlusions with new techniques including the retrograde approach via collaterals. Neth Heart J. 2011; 19(4): 162–167.
  5. Galassi AR, Tomasello SD, Reifart N, et al. In-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic total occlusion: insights from the ERCTO (European Registry of Chronic Total Occlusion) registry. EuroIntervention. 2011; 7(4): 472–479.
  6. Christopoulos G, Menon RV, Karmpaliotis D, et al. The efficacy and safety of the "hybrid" approach to coronary chronic total occlusions: insights from a contemporary multicenter US registry and comparison with prior studies. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014; 26(9): 427–432.
  7. Galassi AR, Sianos G, Werner GS, et al. Retrograde recanalization of chronic total occlusions in europe: procedural, in-hospital, and long-term outcomes from the multicenter ERCTO registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(22): 2388–2400.
  8. Alessandrino G, Chevalier B, Lefèvre T, et al. A clinical and angiographic scoring system to predict the probability of successful first-attempt percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with total chronic coronary occlusion. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(12): 1540–1548.
  9. Rathore S, Matsuo H, Terashima M, et al. Procedural and in-hospital outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions of coronary arteries 2002 to 2008: impact of novel guidewire techniques. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2(6): 489–497.
  10. Michael TT, Karmpaliotis D, Brilakis ES, et al. Procedural outcomes of revascularization of chronic total occlusion of native coronary arteries (from a multicenter United States registry). Am J Cardiol. 2013; 112(4): 488–492.
  11. Prasad A, Rihal CS, Lennon RJ, et al. Trends in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions: a 25-year experience from the Mayo Clinic. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49(15): 1611–1618.
  12. Cuevas C, Ryan N, Quirós A, et al. Determinants of percutaneous coronary intervention success in repeat chronic total occlusion procedures following an initial failed attempt. World J Cardiol. 2017; 9(4): 355–362.
  13. Morino Y, Abe M, Morimoto T, et al. Predicting successful guidewire crossing through chronic total occlusion of native coronary lesions within 30 minutes: the J-CTO (Multicenter CTO Registry in Japan) score as a difficulty grading and time assessment tool. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(2): 213–221.
  14. Szijgyarto Z, Rampat R, Werner GS, et al. Derivation and validation of a chronic total coronary occlusion intervention procedural success score from the 20,000-patient EuroCTO registry: the EuroCTO (CASTLE) score. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12(4): 335–342.
  15. Syrseloudis D, Secco GG, Barrero EA, et al. Increase in J-CTO lesion complexity score explains the disparity between recanalisation success and evolution of chronic total occlusion strategies: insights from a single-centre 10-year experience. Heart. 2013; 99(7): 474–479.
  16. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(37): 2541–2619.
  17. Levine G, Bates E, Blankenship J, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011; 124(23): e574–e651.
  18. Azzalini L, Torregrossa G, Puskas JD, et al. Percutaneous revascularization of chronic total occlusions: Rationale, indications, techniques, and the cardiac surgeon's point of view. Int J Cardiol. 2017; 231: 90–96.
  19. Tanabe M, Kodama K, Asada K, et al. Lesion characteristics and procedural outcomes of re-attempted percutaneous coronary interventions for chronic total occlusion. Heart Vessels. 2018; 33(6): 573–582.
  20. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, et al. Incomplete revascularization in the era of drug-eluting stents: impact on adverse outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2(1): 17–25.
  21. Joyal D, Afilalo J, Rinfret S. Effectiveness of recanalization of chronic total occlusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2010; 160(1): 179–187.
  22. van der Schaaf RJ, Vis M, Sjauw K, et al. Impact of multivessel coronary disease on long-term mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction is due to the presence of a chronic total occlusion. Am J Cardiol. 2006; 98(9): 1165–1169.
  23. Cuevas C, Ryan N, Quirós A, et al. Determinants of percutaneous coronary intervention success in repeat chronic total occlusion procedures following an initial failed attempt. World J Cardiol. 2017; 9(4): 355–362.
  24. Sekiguchi M, Muramatsu T, Kishi K, et al. Assessment of reattempted percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for chronic total occlusion after prior failed procedures: Analysis of the Japanese CTO-PCI Expert Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94(4): 516–524.
  25. Karacsonyi J, Karatasakis A, Karmpaliotis D, et al. Effect of previous failure on subsequent procedural outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (from a contemporary multicenter registry). Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117(8): 1267–1271.
  26. Galassi AR, Sianos G, Werner GS, et al. Retrograde recanalization of chronic total occlusions in europe: procedural, in-hospital, and long-term outcomes from the multicenter ERCTO registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(22): 2388–2400.
  27. Tanaka H, Ohya M, Kubo S, et al. Impact of retrograde approach on long-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing coronary chronic total occlusion interventions. EuroIntervention. 2015; 14(11): e1183–e1191.
  28. Wei KC, Yang KC, Mar GY, et al. STROBE--Radiation Ulcer: An Overlooked Complication of Fluoroscopic Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94(48): e2178.
  29. Werner GS, Glaser P, Coenen A, et al. Reduction of radiation exposure during complex interventions for chronic total coronary occlusions: Implementing low dose radiation protocols without affecting procedural success rates. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 89(6): 1005–1012.
  30. Shorrock D, Christopoulos G, Wosik J, et al. Impact of a disposable sterile radiation shield on operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015; 27(7): 313–316.
  31. Tajti P, Brilakis ES. Chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: evidence and controversies. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(2): e006732.
  32. Mir T, Ullah W, Sattar Y, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous intervention in in-stent versus de-novo chronic total occlusion: a meta-analysis. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2020; 18(11): 827–833.
  33. Tanabe M, Kodama K, Asada K, et al. Lesion characteristics and procedural outcomes of re-attempted percutaneous coronary interventions for chronic total occlusion. Heart Vessels. 2018; 33(6): 573–582.
  34. Safley DM, House JA, Marso SP, et al. Improvement in survival following successful percutaneous coronary intervention of coronary chronic total occlusions: variability by target vessel. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008; 1(3): 295–302.
  35. Claessen BE, Dangas GD, Godino C, et al. Multinational CTO Registry. Impact of target vessel on long-term survival after percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 82(1): 76–82.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl