Systematic review demonstrates improved success rates in hybrid CTO PCI techniques, indicating lower adverse events and effective strategies.
Background: Chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) is a complex revascularization procedure requiring advanced techniques to ensure procedural success and safety. Hybrid strategies combining antegrade dissection/re-entry (ADR) and retrograde approaches have become increasingly adopted in contemporary practice. Objectives: To systematically review and synthesize evidence comparing outcomes of ADR and retrograde CTO PCI techniques, with pooled estimates of success rates and adverse events. Methods: This review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for studies published between January 2015 and June 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting outcomes of ADR and/or retrograde CTO PCI. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for consistently reported outcomes. Results: Twenty studies encompassing over 87,000 CTO PCI procedures were included. Pooled analysis of 16 studies demonstrated a technical success rate of 83.4% and a procedural success rate of 84.6%. The in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was 3.3%. Hybrid strategies integrating ADR and retrograde approaches yielded the highest success rates (86–91%) with acceptable safety profiles. Use of adjunctive tools such as IVUS, dual arterial access, and re-entry devices was associated with improved outcomes. Discussion: Hybrid CTO PCI techniques are safe, effective, and reproducible across diverse clinical settings. When performed by experienced operators using modern adjuncts, these strategies provide durable benefits and should be considered standard for complex occlusions. Limitations include variation in study quality, heterogeneous procedural definitions, and lack of long-term data in several cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rosu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: