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 -