Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions

Lorenzo Azzalini; R Dautov; ES Brilakis; S Ojeda; S Benincasa; B Bellini; A Karatasakis; J Chavarría; BV Rangan; M Pan; M Carlino; A Colombo; S Rinfret

doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.273

Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions

Lorenzo Azzalini, R Dautov, ES Brilakis, S Ojeda, S Benincasa, B Bellini, A Karatasakis, J Chavarría, BV Rangan, M Pan, M Carlino, A Colombo, S Rinfret

IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Background: There are few data regarding the procedural and follow-up outcomes of different antegrade dissection/re-entry (ADR) techniques for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We compiled a multicenter registry of consecutive patients undergoing ADR-based CTO PCI at four high-volume specialized institutions. Patients were divided according to the specific ADR technique used: subintimal tracking and re-entry (STAR), limited antegrade subintimal tracking (LAST), or device-based with the CrossBoss/Stingray system (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization) on follow-up were the main outcome of this study. Independent predictors of MACE were sought with Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 223 patients were included (STAR . n=39, LAST . n=68, CrossBoss/Stingray . n=116). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Technical and procedural success was lower with STAR (59% and 59%), as compared with LAST (96% and 96%) and CrossBoss/Stingray (89% and 87%; . p .

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	78-83
Number of pages	6
Journal	International Journal of Cardiology
Volume	231
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.273
Publication status	Published - 2017

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.273

http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007008193&partnerID=8YFLogxK

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Azzalini, L., Dautov, R., Brilakis, ES., Ojeda, S., Benincasa, S., Bellini, B., Karatasakis, A., Chavarría, J., Rangan, BV., Pan, M., Carlino, M., Colombo, A., & Rinfret, S. (2017). Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions. International Journal of Cardiology, 231(4), 78-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.273

Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions. / Azzalini, Lorenzo; Dautov, R; Brilakis, ES; Ojeda, S; Benincasa, S; Bellini, B; Karatasakis, A; Chavarría, J; Rangan, BV; Pan, M; Carlino, M; Colombo, A; Rinfret, S.

In: International Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 231, No. 4, 2017, p. 78-83.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Azzalini, L, Dautov, R, Brilakis, ES, Ojeda, S, Benincasa, S, Bellini, B, Karatasakis, A, Chavarría, J, Rangan, BV, Pan, M, Carlino, M, Colombo, A & Rinfret, S 2017, 'Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions', International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 231, no. 4, pp. 78-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.273

Azzalini, Lorenzo ; Dautov, R ; Brilakis, ES ; Ojeda, S ; Benincasa, S ; Bellini, B ; Karatasakis, A ; Chavarría, J ; Rangan, BV ; Pan, M ; Carlino, M ; Colombo, A ; Rinfret, S. / Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions. In: International Journal of Cardiology. 2017 ; Vol. 231, No. 4. pp. 78-83.

@article{dd3a8fac038049d9b3292982c52cd449,

title = "Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions",

abstract = "Background: There are few data regarding the procedural and follow-up outcomes of different antegrade dissection/re-entry (ADR) techniques for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We compiled a multicenter registry of consecutive patients undergoing ADR-based CTO PCI at four high-volume specialized institutions. Patients were divided according to the specific ADR technique used: subintimal tracking and re-entry (STAR), limited antegrade subintimal tracking (LAST), or device-based with the CrossBoss/Stingray system (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization) on follow-up were the main outcome of this study. Independent predictors of MACE were sought with Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 223 patients were included (STAR . n=39, LAST . n=68, CrossBoss/Stingray . n=116). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Technical and procedural success was lower with STAR (59% and 59%), as compared with LAST (96% and 96%) and CrossBoss/Stingray (89% and 87%; . p . ",

author = "Lorenzo Azzalini and R Dautov and ES Brilakis and S Ojeda and S Benincasa and B Bellini and A Karatasakis and J Chavarr{\'i}a and BV Rangan and M Pan and M Carlino and A Colombo and S Rinfret",

year = "2017",

doi = "10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.273",

language = "English",

volume = "231",

pages = "78--83",

journal = "International Journal of Cardiology",

issn = "0167-5273",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions

AU - Azzalini, Lorenzo

AU - Dautov, R

AU - Brilakis, ES

AU - Ojeda, S

AU - Benincasa, S

AU - Bellini, B

AU - Karatasakis, A

AU - Chavarría, J

AU - Rangan, BV

AU - Pan, M

AU - Carlino, M

AU - Colombo, A

AU - Rinfret, S

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Background: There are few data regarding the procedural and follow-up outcomes of different antegrade dissection/re-entry (ADR) techniques for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We compiled a multicenter registry of consecutive patients undergoing ADR-based CTO PCI at four high-volume specialized institutions. Patients were divided according to the specific ADR technique used: subintimal tracking and re-entry (STAR), limited antegrade subintimal tracking (LAST), or device-based with the CrossBoss/Stingray system (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization) on follow-up were the main outcome of this study. Independent predictors of MACE were sought with Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 223 patients were included (STAR . n=39, LAST . n=68, CrossBoss/Stingray . n=116). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Technical and procedural success was lower with STAR (59% and 59%), as compared with LAST (96% and 96%) and CrossBoss/Stingray (89% and 87%; . p .

AB - Background: There are few data regarding the procedural and follow-up outcomes of different antegrade dissection/re-entry (ADR) techniques for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We compiled a multicenter registry of consecutive patients undergoing ADR-based CTO PCI at four high-volume specialized institutions. Patients were divided according to the specific ADR technique used: subintimal tracking and re-entry (STAR), limited antegrade subintimal tracking (LAST), or device-based with the CrossBoss/Stingray system (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization) on follow-up were the main outcome of this study. Independent predictors of MACE were sought with Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 223 patients were included (STAR . n=39, LAST . n=68, CrossBoss/Stingray . n=116). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Technical and procedural success was lower with STAR (59% and 59%), as compared with LAST (96% and 96%) and CrossBoss/Stingray (89% and 87%; . p .

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.273

DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.273

M3 - Article

VL - 231

SP - 78

EP - 83

JO - International Journal of Cardiology

JF - International Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0167-5273

IS - 4

ER -