Why the study?
The parallel wire technique had evolved with modern wires and dual-lumen catheters, but this progress had not been evaluated in a contemporary registry of CTO interventions.
Does the parallel wire technique compare favorably to antegrade wire escalation and antegrade-dissection re-entry in terms of safety and procedural characteristics for chronic total coronary occlusions?
Does the parallel wire technique compare favorably to antegrade wire escalation and antegrade-dissection re-entry in terms of safety and procedural characteristics for chronic total coronary occlusions?
In a large contemporary European registry, the parallel wire technique for CTO PCI demonstrated increasing adoption and a safety profile comparable to antegrade wire escalation.
PW adoption in CTO PCI rose modestly over time but stayed low (~10%); leaves open its optimal integration with DLC and modern wires in routine antegrade strategies.
BACKGROUND: The parallel wire technique (PW) is a classic part of the antegrade strategy to open chronic total coronary occlusions (CTO). AIMS: With modern wires and dual-lumen catheters (DLC) the approach has evolved, but this progress had not been evaluated in a contemporary registry of CTO interventions. METHOD: This analysis is based on 26,589 CTO procedures performed by 36 operators with > 50 procedures annually between 2015 and 2022. The different strategies and techniques were analyzed with respect to clinical and lesion characteristics, procedural resource use and periprocedural complications. Within the antegrade approach, PW was compared to antegrade wire escalation (AWE) and antegrade-dissection re-entry (ADR). RESULTS: The primary antegrade approach was used in 65.9%, primary retrograde in 16.9% and a strategy change in 17.2% with a wide inter-operator variability. In primary antegrade approach, PW was applied in 10.8% and ADR in 5.3%. Lesion complexity was higher in AWE and PW than with single wire, and highest in ADR procedures, leading to more complex procedures with higher contrast and radiation usage. Complications increased with ADR, while they were similar with PW and AWE. Through the observation period PW adoption increased steadily from 6.7% to 10.7%, as the DLC use facilitating PW increased from 8.3% to 17.0% over the observation period. CONCLUSION: In this largest database of contemporary CTO PCI from Europe, PW adoption increased over time but remained low at about 10%. While there was a wide individual variety among the operators, it was a safe and successful technique.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Werner et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: