Key result
Baseline hemodialysis was associated with a significantly lower technical success rate for CTO-PCI compared to no hemodialysis (78.0% vs 89.1%, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does baseline hemodialysis impact the technical success rate and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion?
Cohort (n=4,749)
Yes
Does baseline hemodialysis impact the technical success rate and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion?
Baseline hemodialysis is an independent predictor of technical failure in CTO-PCI, though the procedure remains safe with similar in-hospital MACCE rates compared to non-hemodialysis patients.
CTO-PCI success expectations should be adjusted in hemodialysis patients; leaves open whether dedicated techniques improve outcomes.
Background Among patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion ( CTO ‐ PCI ), patients on long‐term hemodialysis are at significantly high risk for cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. However, clinical or angiographic predictors that might aid in better patient selection remain unclear. We aimed to assess the acute impact of hemodialysis in patients who underwent CTO ‐ PCI . Methods and Results The Retrograde Summit registry is a multicenter, prospective registry of patients undergoing CTO ‐ PCI at 65 Japanese centers. Patient characteristics and procedural outcomes of 4749 patients were analyzed, according to the presence (n=313) or absence (n=4436) of baseline hemodialysis. A prediction model for technical failure among hemodialysis patients was also developed. The technical success rate of CTO ‐ PCI was significantly lower in hemodialysis than in nonhemodialysis patients (78.0% versus 89.1%, P <0.001). The rates of in‐hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between the 2 groups (1.6% versus 0.9%, P =0.24). Irrespective of clinical/angiographic characteristics or previously developed scoring systems, hemodialysis independently predicted technical failure for CTO ‐ PCI . Among hemodialysis patients, predictors of technical failure were blunt stump (odds ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval, 1.15–5.21, P =0.021), severe lesion calcification (odds ratio 2.50, 95% confidence interval, 1.19–5.24, P =0.015), and absence of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio 3.15, 95% confidence interval, 1.49–6.64, P =0.003). In hemodialysis patients without these predictors, the technical success rate was 96.2%. Conclusions Hemodialysis is significantly associated with technical failure. Contemporary CTO ‐ PCI seems feasible and safe in selected hemodialysis patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakachi et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Chronic total occlusion (n=4,749). Baseline hemodialysis vs. No baseline hemodialysis was evaluated on Technical success rate of CTO-PCI (p=<0.001). Baseline hemodialysis was associated with a significantly lower technical success rate for CTO-PCI compared to no hemodialysis (78.0% vs 89.1%, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: