Maoto Habara1, Etsuo Tsuchikane1, Toshiya Muramatsu2, Yoshifumi Kashima3, Atsunori Okamura4, Makoto Mutoh5, Masahisa Yamane6, Akitsugu Oida7, Yuji Oikawa8, Katsuyuki Hasegawa9. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Toyohashi Heart Center, Aichi, Japan. 2. Department of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama-City Eastern Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan. 3. Division of Cardiology, Sapporo CardioVascular Clinic, Hokkaido, Japan. 4. Division of Cardiology, Sakurabashi-Watanabe Hospital, Osaka, Japan. 5. Division of Cardiology, Saitama Prefecture Cardiovascular and Respiratory Center, Saitama, Japan. 6. Cardiology Department, Saitama Sekishinkai Hospital, Saitama, Japan. 7. Department of Cardiology, Takase Clinic, Gunma, Japan. 8. Department of Cardiovascular, the Cardiovascular Institute, Tokyo, Japan. 9. Division of Cardiology, Higashi Takarazuka Satoh Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate the acute outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) based on operator experience. BACKGROUND: Despite developments in both technology and techniques, PCI procedures for CTO's remain challenging. METHODS: A total of 3,229 eligible subjects who underwent CTO-PCI were enrolled from 56 centers by a retrograde summit using a web registry system. To compare the acute outcomes of the CTO data, 18 centers were classified as higher volume centers (HC) and 38 centers as lower volume centers (LC) depending on the CTO-PCI experience of the operator. RESULTS: The mean procedural success rate of all centers was 88.4%. The overall procedural success rate was significantly higher in HC than LC (90.6% vs. 85.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001). In addition, overall antegrade success rate was also higher in HC than LC (91.0% vs. 83.9%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Although the overall retrograde approach success rate was significantly higher in HC than LC (85.0% vs. 77.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001), there was no significant difference in that of the retrograde alone (89.0% vs. 93.7%, respectively; P = 0.051). Major in-hospital adverse events were observed in 0.53% of cases, and the rates were similar between the two groups (0.45% vs. 0.62%, respectively; P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Although CTO-PCI was safe in both groups, the procedural success rate was significantly higher in HC than LC, even in this new era of CTO-PCI. This difference was attributed to the difference in the antegrade procedural success rate.
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate the acute outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) based on operator experience. BACKGROUND: Despite developments in both technology and techniques, PCI procedures for CTO's remain challenging. METHODS: A total of 3,229 eligible subjects who underwent CTO-PCI were enrolled from 56 centers by a retrograde summit using a web registry system. To compare the acute outcomes of the CTO data, 18 centers were classified as higher volume centers (HC) and 38 centers as lower volume centers (LC) depending on the CTO-PCI experience of the operator. RESULTS: The mean procedural success rate of all centers was 88.4%. The overall procedural success rate was significantly higher in HC than LC (90.6% vs. 85.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001). In addition, overall antegrade success rate was also higher in HC than LC (91.0% vs. 83.9%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Although the overall retrograde approach success rate was significantly higher in HC than LC (85.0% vs. 77.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001), there was no significant difference in that of the retrograde alone (89.0% vs. 93.7%, respectively; P = 0.051). Major in-hospital adverse events were observed in 0.53% of cases, and the rates were similar between the two groups (0.45% vs. 0.62%, respectively; P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Although CTO-PCI was safe in both groups, the procedural success rate was significantly higher in HC than LC, even in this new era of CTO-PCI. This difference was attributed to the difference in the antegrade procedural success rate.
Authors: Peter Tajti; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Khaldoon Alaswad; Catalin Toma; James W Choi; Farouc A Jaffer; Anthony H Doing; Mitul Patel; Ehtisham Mahmud; Barry Uretsky; Aris Karatasakis; Judit Karacsonyi; Barbara A Danek; Bavana V Rangan; Subhash Banerjee; Imre Ungi; Emmanouil S Brilakis Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Neel M Butala; Hector Tamez; Eric A Secemsky; J Aaron Grantham; John A Spertus; David J Cohen; Philip Jones; Adam C Salisbury; Suzanne V Arnold; Frank Harrell; William Lombardi; Dimitrios Karmpaliotis; Jeffrey Moses; James Sapontis; Robert W Yeh Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Kai-Ze Wu; Ze-Han Huang; Zhi-An Zhong; Hong-Tao Liao; Yi Zhou; Bing-Zheng Luo; Mahesh Anantha-Narayanan; Rami N Khouzam; Aakash Garg; Vladan Vukcevic; Nicholas G Kounis; Bin Zhang Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-05
Authors: Giuseppe Gargiulo; Dik Heg; Fabrizio Ferrari; Gianfranco Percoco; Gianluca Campo; Carlo Tumscitz; Federico Colombo; Andrea Zuffi; Fausto Castriota; Alberto Cremonesi; Stephan Windecker; Marco Valgimigli Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-12-23 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Judit Karacsonyi; Khaldoon Alaswad; Farouc A Jaffer; Robert W Yeh; Mitul Patel; John Bahadorani; Aris Karatasakis; Barbara A Danek; Anthony Doing; J Aaron Grantham; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Jeffrey W Moses; Ajay Kirtane; Manish Parikh; Ziad Ali; William L Lombardi; David E Kandzari; Nicholas Lembo; Santiago Garcia; Michael R Wyman; Aya Alame; Phuong-Khanh J Nguyen-Trong; Erica Resendes; Pratik Kalsaria; Bavana V Rangan; Imre Ungi; Craig A Thompson; Subhash Banerjee; Emmanouil S Brilakis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-08-20 Impact factor: 5.501