Why the study?
The study aimed to analyze angiographic characteristics of newly attempted PCI on CTO compared to a first-attempt group.
Does reattempted percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion achieve similar technical success compared to first-attempt procedures?
Does reattempted percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion achieve similar technical success compared to first-attempt procedures?
Reattempted CTO-PCI achieves comparable technical success to first attempts despite higher lesion complexity, contributing to a higher overall procedural success rate.
Re-attempt CTO-PCI shows distinct angiographic features; leaves open whether these inform procedural planning in prospective studies.
This study aimed to analyze angiographic characteristics of new attempted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on chronic total occlusion (CTO) compared to first attempt group. The cohort of 527 CTO-PCIs was divided into first-attempt and re-attempt groups, and angiographic characteristics, level of complexity, and contributing factors to failure were analyzed. Between-group success rate difference and potential angiographic and technical aspects contributing to the success in new attempts were scrutinized. A total of 47 new PCIs in 39 patients were performed. The reattempt group showed higher J-CTO score compared to the first-attempt group (2.4 ± 1.06 vs. 1.2 ± 1.06; p < 0.001). The use of more complex techniques and devices such as retrograde approach (29.8% vs. 12.9%) and IVUS (48.9 vs. 27.3%; p: 0.002) were more frequent in the reattempt group. Both procedural and fluoroscopy time were higher in the reattempt group (197 ± 83.9 vs. 150.1 ± 72.3 and 97.7 ± 55.4 vs. 68.7 ± 43, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no between-group difference in terms of technical success (79.8 vs. 76.6% for first attempt vs. reattempt group, respectively; p: 0.6). The overall success rate increased by 6.1%, achieving 85.9% in the entire cohort. Reattempted CTO-PCIs required more complex techniques and had comparable technical success rate with regard to the first-attempt group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohandes et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: