Klaudija Bijuklic1, Carsten Schwencke1, Joachim Schofer2. 1. Medical Care Center Prof. Mathey, Prof. Schofer, Hamburg University Cardiovascular Center, Wördemannsweg 25-27, 22527, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Medical Care Center Prof. Mathey, Prof. Schofer, Hamburg University Cardiovascular Center, Wördemannsweg 25-27, 22527, Hamburg, Germany. schofer@herz-hh.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recanalization success rate of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be increased by the retrograde approach; however, the long-term outcome of patients undergoing retrograde procedures is unknown. AIM: We aimed to evaluate the long-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate (e.g. death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass surgery and stroke) in patients after retrograde versus antegrade CTO-PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective single center study from January 2008 to June 2012, 396 consecutive patients with CTO (≥3 months old) were enrolled. The mean age was 63.4 ± 10.3 years and 86.4% were male. The success rate of the total patient cohort was 88.6%. The retrograde PCI, only attempted after a failed antegrade intervention, was performed in 18% (n = 71) of patients. Long-term MACCE rate (mean follow up 2.3 ± 1.6 years) was significantly higher in the unsuccessful compared to the successful CTO-PCI group (23.1% versus 9.4%, p = 0.01) and this was also the case in the subgroup of antegrade CTO-PCI. In the retrograde subgroup, however, procedural success had no impact on outcome. Patients with unsuccessful retrograde CTO-PCI had a significantly better collateral connection compared to patients with an unsuccessful antegrade approach. Independent predictors for MACCE were peripheral artery disease and an ejection fraction ≤30%. CONCLUSION: The long-term MACCE rate after unsuccessful recanalization was significantly higher, which was driven by a higher MACCE rate after unsuccessful versus successful antegrade approaches. In contrast, procedural success in the retrograde group had no impact on outcome.
BACKGROUND: The recanalization success rate of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be increased by the retrograde approach; however, the long-term outcome of patients undergoing retrograde procedures is unknown. AIM: We aimed to evaluate the long-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate (e.g. death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass surgery and stroke) in patients after retrograde versus antegrade CTO-PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective single center study from January 2008 to June 2012, 396 consecutive patients with CTO (≥3 months old) were enrolled. The mean age was 63.4 ± 10.3 years and 86.4% were male. The success rate of the total patient cohort was 88.6%. The retrograde PCI, only attempted after a failed antegrade intervention, was performed in 18% (n = 71) of patients. Long-term MACCE rate (mean follow up 2.3 ± 1.6 years) was significantly higher in the unsuccessful compared to the successful CTO-PCI group (23.1% versus 9.4%, p = 0.01) and this was also the case in the subgroup of antegrade CTO-PCI. In the retrograde subgroup, however, procedural success had no impact on outcome. Patients with unsuccessful retrograde CTO-PCI had a significantly better collateral connection compared to patients with an unsuccessful antegrade approach. Independent predictors for MACCE were peripheral artery disease and an ejection fraction ≤30%. CONCLUSION: The long-term MACCE rate after unsuccessful recanalization was significantly higher, which was driven by a higher MACCE rate after unsuccessful versus successful antegrade approaches. In contrast, procedural success in the retrograde group had no impact on outcome.
Entities:
Keywords:
Antegrade approach; Chronic total occlusion; Long term follow-up; MACCE; Retrograde
Authors: J A Suero; S P Marso; P G Jones; S B Laster; K C Huber; L V Giorgi; W L Johnson; B D Rutherford Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gerald S Werner; Markus Ferrari; Stephan Heinke; Friedhelm Kuethe; Ralf Surber; Barbara M Richartz; Hans R Figulla Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-03-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Tesfaldet T Michael; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Emmanouil S Brilakis; Eric Fuh; Vishal G Patel; Owen Mogabgab; Mohammed Alomar; Ben L Kirkland; Nicholas Lembo; Anna Kalynych; Harold Carlson; Subhash Banerjee; William Lombardi; David E Kandzari Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-05-11 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Bimmer E P M Claessen; René J van der Schaaf; Niels J Verouden; Nienke K Stegenga; Annemarie E Engstrom; Krischan D Sjauw; Wouter J Kikkert; Marije M Vis; Jan Baan; Karel T Koch; Robbert J de Winter; Jan G P Tijssen; Jan J Piek; José P S Henriques Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Sharon W Kirschbaum; Timo Baks; Martin van den Ent; George Sianos; Gabriel P Krestin; Patrick W Serruys; Pim J de Feyter; Robert-Jan M van Geuns Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-12-03 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; David J Maron; G B John Mancini; Sean W Hayes; Pamela M Hartigan; William S Weintraub; Robert A O'Rourke; Marcin Dada; John A Spertus; Bernard R Chaitman; John Friedman; Piotr Slomka; Gary V Heller; Guido Germano; Gilbert Gosselin; Peter Berger; William J Kostuk; Ronald G Schwartz; Merill Knudtson; Emir Veledar; Eric R Bates; Benjamin McCallister; Koon K Teo; William E Boden Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690