A Bufe1, G Haltern, W Dinh, J Wolfertz, H Schleiting, H Guelker. 1. Department of Cardiology, Med. Clinic 3, HELIOS Heart Center Wuppertal, University Witten/Herdecke, Arrenbergerstr. 20, 42117, Wuppertal, Germany, alexander.bufe@helios-kliniken.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous treatment of coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) remains one of the major challenges in interventional cardiology. The strategies of recanalisation in CTO have changed drastically due the development of new techniques such as the retrograde approach via collaterals. In this single-centre experience we sought to analyse the success rates with the use of different CTO techniques, the complication rates, and we evaluated predictors of failed CTO recanalisation attempts. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this single-centre observational study we analysed the prospectively entered data of 331 consecutive patients, undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for CTO in 338 lesions at the Heart Center Wuppertal between June 2007 and July 2010. Nineteen lesions were attempted twice and one lesion three times (=358 procedures). The lesion-related success rates were 81.1%. Single-wire usage was the predominant strategy used in 198 antegrade cases (65.6%) followed by parallel wire technique and see-saw technique in 94 cases (31.1%). In the retrograde procedures, the reverse CART technique was predominantly used (35.7%), followed by retrograde wire passage (17.9%), marker wire (17.9%) and CART (14.3%). The in-hospital complications were low and comparable with conventional PCI data. The presence of blunt stump, severe calcification, severe tortuosity and occlusion length >30 mm were independent predictors of procedural failure. CONCLUSIONS: A high degree of success with low in-hospital complications comparable with conventional PCI data can be expected in the hands of experienced CTO operators. A second try with a retrograde approach after antegrade failure should be considered.
OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous treatment of coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) remains one of the major challenges in interventional cardiology. The strategies of recanalisation in CTO have changed drastically due the development of new techniques such as the retrograde approach via collaterals. In this single-centre experience we sought to analyse the success rates with the use of different CTO techniques, the complication rates, and we evaluated predictors of failed CTO recanalisation attempts. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this single-centre observational study we analysed the prospectively entered data of 331 consecutive patients, undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for CTO in 338 lesions at the Heart Center Wuppertal between June 2007 and July 2010. Nineteen lesions were attempted twice and one lesion three times (=358 procedures). The lesion-related success rates were 81.1%. Single-wire usage was the predominant strategy used in 198 antegrade cases (65.6%) followed by parallel wire technique and see-saw technique in 94 cases (31.1%). In the retrograde procedures, the reverse CART technique was predominantly used (35.7%), followed by retrograde wire passage (17.9%), marker wire (17.9%) and CART (14.3%). The in-hospital complications were low and comparable with conventional PCI data. The presence of blunt stump, severe calcification, severe tortuosity and occlusion length >30 mm were independent predictors of procedural failure. CONCLUSIONS: A high degree of success with low in-hospital complications comparable with conventional PCI data can be expected in the hands of experienced CTO operators. A second try with a retrograde approach after antegrade failure should be considered.
Authors: A D Grayson; R K Moore; M Jackson; S Rathore; S Sastry; T P Gray; I Schofield; A Chauhan; F F Ordoubadi; B Prendergast; R H Stables Journal: Heart Date: 2005-09-13 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Carlo Di Mario; Gerald S Werner; Georgios Sianos; Alfredo R Galassi; Joachim Büttner; Dariusz Dudek; Bernard Chevalier; Thierry Lefevre; Joachim Schofer; Jacques Koolen; Horst Sievert; Bernhard Reimers; Jean Fajadet; Antonio Colombo; Anthony Gershlick; Patrick W Serruys; Nicolaus Reifart Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: V Dzavik; R G Carere; G B Mancini; E A Cohen; D Catellier; T E Anderson; G Barbeau; C Lazzam; L M Title; P B Berger; M Labinaz; K K Teo; C E Buller Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: J Dawn Abbott; Kevin E Kip; Helen A Vlachos; Neil Sawhney; Vankeepuran S Srinivas; Alice K Jacobs; David R Holmes; David O Williams Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-04-21 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: J A Puma; M H Sketch; J E Tcheng; R A Harrington; H R Phillips; R S Stack; R M Califf Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David M Safley; John A House; Steven P Marso; J Aaron Grantham; Barry D Rutherford Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Tesfaldet T Michael; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Emmanouil S Brilakis; Mohammed Alomar; Shuaib M Abdullah; Ben L Kirkland; Katrina L Mishoe; Nicholas Lembo; Anna Kalynych; Harold Carlson; Subhash Banerjee; Michael Luna; William Lombardi; David E Kandzari Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jan-Erik Guelker; Alexander Bufe; Christian Blockhaus; Knut Kroeger; Thomas Rock; Ibrahim Akin; Michael Behnes; Kambis Mashayekhi Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Georgios Christopoulos; R Michael Wyman; Khaldoon Alaswad; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; William Lombardi; J Aaron Grantham; Robert W Yeh; Farouc A Jaffer; Daisha J Cipher; Bavana V Rangan; Georgios E Christakopoulos; Megan A Kypreos; Nicholas Lembo; David Kandzari; Santiago Garcia; Craig A Thompson; Subhash Banerjee; Emmanouil S Brilakis Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 6.546