Procedural outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with dissection and reentry versus wire escalation techniques: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The procedural safety of dissection and reentry (DR) techniques in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial, when compared with conventional wire escalation (WE) techniques. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of DR techniques vs. WE techniques on periprocedural outcomes in patients with CTO undergoing PCI. METHODS: Studies were searched in electronic database from inception to December 2018. Results were pooled using random effects model and fixed effects model. RESULTS: The pooled analyses revealed that DR techniques increased risks of periprocedural complications in patients with CTO PCI, including higher coronary perforation rate [risk ratio (RR) = 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-3.55], periprocedural myocardial infarction (RR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.23-2.78), branch occlusion (RR = 2.69; 95% CI 1.92-3.77) and coronary hematoma (RR = 3.06; 95% CI 2.45-3.82) detected by intravascular ultrasound, when compared to those with WE techniques. However, DR techniques were more applied in patients with higher complexity CTO lesions, which was evidenced by higher J-CTO score [standard mean differences (SMD) = 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.91] and longer fluoroscopy time (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.16), that may explain the higher complications rates in the DR techniques group as compared with WE techniques. CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis suggests that the DR technique is relatively frequently used during contemporary CTO PCI, especially for challenging more complex CTO lesions. However, it is associated with higher, yet acceptable, rates of periprocedural adverse events as compared with a conventional WE strategy. Further refinement of DR techniques and evidence from large RCTs is needed to define the optimal role of DR in hybrid CTO PCI.