| Literature DB >> 32863821 |
Ruo-Fei Jia1, Long Li1, Yong Zhu2, Cheng-Zhi Yang1, Shuai Meng1, Yang Ruan1, Xiao-Jing Cao1, Hong-Yu Hu1, Wei Chen1, Jing Nan1, Xiao-Wei Xiong1, Jing-Jin Li1, Jia-Yu Wang1, Ze-Ning Jin1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subintimal plaque modification (SPM) is often performed to restore antegrade flow and facilitate subsequent lesion recanalization. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of modified SPM with traditional SPM.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic total occlusion; Recanalization; Subintimal plaque modification
Year: 2020 PMID: 32863821 PMCID: PMC7416063 DOI: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2020.07.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Geriatr Cardiol ISSN: 1671-5411 Impact factor: 3.327
1Study flowchart.
Baseline clinical characteristics of study population.
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
| Values are mean ± SD or | |||
| Age, yrs | 60.8 ± 9.2 | 57.2 ± 10.2 | 0.18 |
| Male | 23 (71.9%) | 17 (77.3%) | 0.76 |
| Current smoker | 22 (68.8%) | 13 (59.1%) | 0.57 |
| Medical history | |||
| Hypertension | 25 (78.1%) | 16 (72.7%) | 0.75 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 13 (40.6%) | 13 (59.1%) | 0.27 |
| Previous MI | 11 (34.4%) | 6 (27.3%) | 0.77 |
| Previous CABG | 7 (21.9%) | 4 (18.2%) | 0.99 |
| Arial fibriallation | 5 (15.6%) | 2 (9.1%) | 0.69 |
| CKD | 8 (25.0%) | 4 (18.2%) | 0.74 |
| CCS angina score | 0.86 | ||
| Ⅰ/Ⅱ | 11 (34.4%) | 12 (54.5%) | |
| Ⅲ/Ⅳ | 21 (65.6%) | 10 (45.5%) | |
| Baseline LVEF | 53.6% ± 5.8% | 54.3% ± 7.0% | 0.67 |
Baseline lesion and procedural characteristics of study population.
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
| Values are mean ± SD or | |||
| CTO target vessels, % | 0.98 | ||
| LAD | 8 (25.0%) | 5 (22.7%) | |
| LCX | 7 (21.9%) | 5 (22.7%) | |
| RCA | 17 (53.1%) | 12 (54.5%) | |
| J-CTO score, % | 0.80 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 1 (4.5%) | |
| 1 | 5 (15.6%) | 4 (18.2%) | |
| 2 | 9 (28.1%) | 5 (22.7%) | |
| 3 | 11 (34.4%) | 7 (31.8%) | |
| 4 | 4 (12.5%) | 4 (18.2%) | |
| 5 | 3 (9.4%) | 1 (4.5%) | |
| Prior attempt of CTO target lesion, % | 6 (18.8%) | 4 (18.2%) | 0.99 |
| Guidewire in distal true lumen, % | 7 (21.9%) | 6 (27.3%) | 0.75 |
| Lesion length, mm | 47.5 ± 17.3 | 40.4 ± 20.8 | 0.18 |
| Calcification present, % | 23 (71.9%) | 13 (59.1%) | 0.67 |
| CTO proximal reference vessel diameter | 2.77 ± 0.36 | 2.66 ± 0.27 | 0.22 |
| CTO distal reference vessel diameter | 2.05 ± 0.49 | 2.09 ± 0.36 | 0.59 |
| Procedural complications, % | 0.83 | ||
| Death | 0 | 0 | |
| Perforation | 2 (6.2%) | 1 (4.5%) | |
| Stroke | 0 | 0 | |
| Stent thrombosis | 0 | 0 | |
| Emergent surgery | 0 | 0 | |
| Bleeding at access | 4 (12.5%) | 4 (18.2%) | |
| None | 26 (81.2%) | 17 (77.3%) | |
SPM characteristics and outcome of study population.
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
| Values are mean ± SD or | |||
| SPM characteristics | |||
| Stingray balloon present | 4 (12.5%) | 22 (100%) | < 0.01 |
| SPM range (SPM length/lesion length) | 0.59 ± 0.16 | 0.92 ± 0.12 | < 0.05 |
| SPM biggest Balloon size, mm | 1.83 ± 0.30 | 2.48 ± 0.26 | < 0.05 |
| Extensive guiding catheter present | 4 (12.5%) | 22 (100%) | < 0.01 |
| Follow-up repeat CTO results | |||
| Time of follow-up after SPM, days | 56.4 ± 19.3 | 51.4 ± 19.7 | 0.18 |
| TIMI grade flow 2-3 at follow-up | 20 (62.5%) | 20 (90.9%) | < 0.05 |
| Successful revascularization | 26 (81.3%) | 21 (95.5%) | 0.73 |
2Recanalization after contemporary SPM technique: 30 day follow-up.
3Illustration for contemporary SPM technique.