Joren Maeremans1,2, James C Spratt3, Paul Knaapen4, Simon Walsh5, Pierfrancesco Agostoni6,7, William Wilson8, Alexandre Avran9, Benjamin Faurie10, Erwan Bressollette11, Peter Kayaert12, Alan J Bagnall13,14, Dave Smith15, Margaret B McEntegart16, William H T Smith17, Paul Kelly18, John Irving19, Elliot J Smith20, Julian W Strange21, Jo Dens1,2. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Universiteit Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium. 2. Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium. 3. Department of Cardiology, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Cardiology, VU university medical center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Cardiology, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Cardiology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 9. Department of Cardiology, Clinique de Marignane, Marignane, Marseille, France. 10. Department of Cardiology, Groupe Hospitalier Mutualiste, Grenoble, France. 11. Department of Cardiology, Nouvelles Cliniques Nantaises, Nantes, France. 12. Department of Cardiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 13. Department of Cardiology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. 14. Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, United Kingdom. 15. Department of Cardiology, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, United Kingdom. 16. Department of Cardiology, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 17. Department of Cardiology, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 18. Department of Cardiology, Essex Cardio-thoracic Centre, Basildon Hospital, Essex, United Kingdom. 19. Department of Cardiology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, United Kingdom. 20. Department of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom. 21. Department of Cardiology, Bristol Heart Institute, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to create a contemporary scoring tool to predict technical outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from patients treated by hybrid operators with differing experience levels. BACKGROUND: Current scoring systems need regular updating to cope with the positive evolutions regarding materials, techniques, and outcomes, while at the same time being applicable for a broad range of operators. METHODS: Clinical and angiographic characteristics from 880 CTO-PCIs included in the REgistry of CrossBoss and Hybrid procedures in FrAnce, the NetheRlands, BelGium and UnitEd Kingdom (RECHARGE) were analyzed by using a derivation and validation set (2:1 ratio). Variables significantly associated with technical failure in the multivariable analysis were incorporated in the score. Subsequently, the discriminatory capacity was assessed and the validation set was used to compare with the J-CTO score and PROGRESS scores. RESULTS: Technical success in the derivation and validation sets was 83% and 85%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified six parameters associated with technical failure: blunt stump (beta coefficient (b) = 1.014); calcification (b = 0.908); tortuosity ≥45° (b = 0.964); lesion length 20 mm (b = 0.556); diseased distal landing zone (b = 0.794), and previous bypass graft on CTO vessel (b = 0.833). Score variables remained significant after bootstrapping. The RECHARGE score showed better discriminatory capacity in both sets (area-under-the-curve (AUC) = 0.783 and 0.711), compared to the J-CTO (AUC = 0.676) and PROGRESS (AUC = 0.608) scores. CONCLUSIONS: The RECHARGE score is a novel, easy-to-use tool for assessing the risk for technical failure in hybrid CTO-PCI and has the potential to perform well for a broad community of operators.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to create a contemporary scoring tool to predict technical outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from patients treated by hybrid operators with differing experience levels. BACKGROUND: Current scoring systems need regular updating to cope with the positive evolutions regarding materials, techniques, and outcomes, while at the same time being applicable for a broad range of operators. METHODS: Clinical and angiographic characteristics from 880 CTO-PCIs included in the REgistry of CrossBoss and Hybrid procedures in FrAnce, the NetheRlands, BelGium and UnitEd Kingdom (RECHARGE) were analyzed by using a derivation and validation set (2:1 ratio). Variables significantly associated with technical failure in the multivariable analysis were incorporated in the score. Subsequently, the discriminatory capacity was assessed and the validation set was used to compare with the J-CTO score and PROGRESS scores. RESULTS: Technical success in the derivation and validation sets was 83% and 85%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified six parameters associated with technical failure: blunt stump (beta coefficient (b) = 1.014); calcification (b = 0.908); tortuosity ≥45° (b = 0.964); lesion length 20 mm (b = 0.556); diseased distal landing zone (b = 0.794), and previous bypass graft on CTO vessel (b = 0.833). Score variables remained significant after bootstrapping. The RECHARGE score showed better discriminatory capacity in both sets (area-under-the-curve (AUC) = 0.783 and 0.711), compared to the J-CTO (AUC = 0.676) and PROGRESS (AUC = 0.608) scores. CONCLUSIONS: The RECHARGE score is a novel, easy-to-use tool for assessing the risk for technical failure in hybrid CTO-PCI and has the potential to perform well for a broad community of operators.
Authors: Dagmar F Hernandez-Suarez; Lorenzo Azzalini; Francesco Moroni; João Eduardo Tinoco de Paula; Pablo Lamelas; Carlos M Campos; Marcelo Harada Ribeiro; Evandro Martins Filho; Felix Damas de Los Santos; Lucio Padilla; Marco Alcantara-Melendez; Marcelo A Abud; Israel A Almodóvar-Rivera; Marcia Moura Schmidt; Mauro Echavarria; Antonio Carlos Botelho; Valentin Del Rio; Alexandre Quadros; Ricardo Santiago Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Pablo Salinas; Nieves Gonzalo; Víctor H Moreno; Manuel Fuentes; Sandra Santos-Martinez; José Antonio Fernandez-Diaz; Ignacio J Amat-Santos; Francisco Bosa Ojeda; Juan Caballero Borrego; Javier Cuesta; José María de la Torre Hernández; Alejandro Diego-Nieto; Daniela Dubois; Guillermo Galeote; Javier Goicolea; Alejandro Gutiérrez; Miriam Jiménez-Fernández; Jesús Jiménez-Mazuecos; Alfonso Jurado; Javier Lacunza; Dae-Hyun Lee; María López; Fernando Lozano; Javier Martin-Moreiras; Victoria Martin-Yuste; Raúl Millán; Gema Miñana; Mohsen Mohandes; Francisco J Morales-Ponce; Julio Núñez; Soledad Ojeda; Manuel Pan; Fernando Rivero; Javier Robles; Sergio Rodríguez-Leiras; Sergio Rojas; Juan Rondán; Eva Rumiz; Manel Sabaté; Juan Sanchís; Beatriz Vaquerizo; Javier Escaned Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Leszek Bryniarski; Maksymilian P Opolski; Jarosław Wójcik; Maciej Lesiak; Tomasz Pawłowski; Jakub Drozd; Wojciech Wojakowski; Sławomir Surowiec; Maciej Dąbrowski; Adam Witkowski; Dariusz Dudek; Marek Grygier; Stanisław Bartuś Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 1.426