| Literature DB >> 34629988 |
Bin Xiao1,2, Lang Hong1,3, Xinyong Cai1,3, Hongmin Zhu1,3, Bin Li1,3, Liang Shao1,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With the rapid development of technology and experience, the current percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusion (CTO-PCI) preoperative scoring model needs to be updated. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of the operator-CTO score in predicting the outcome of interventional therapy for chronic total occlusion of the coronary artery.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34629988 PMCID: PMC8463195 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9988943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Interv Cardiol ISSN: 0896-4327 Impact factor: 2.279
CTO-PCI scoring system based on clinic and angiography.
| Variables | Angiographic features | Clinical features | Main disadvantages | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blunt stump | Lesion length>20 mm | Calcification | Tortuosity1 | Collateral2 | LCx-CTO3 | Ostial location | Distal lesion | Age (≥75) | Previous reconstruction failure4 | Previous MI | ||
| J-CTO score | + | + | + | + | + | Not applicable to retrograde or hybrid technology | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| PROGRESS score | + | + | + | + | Variables are controversial, and the observation of lesions is ignored | |||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Recharge score | + | + | + | + | + | + | Variables related to operator skill or experience were not included | |||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| CL score | + | +(1.5 point) | +(2.0 point) | + | +(1.5 point) | + | Not applicable to retrograde or hybrid technology centers | |||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| ORA score | + | + | + | Concluded by one operator, not considering the operator's technology and experience | ||||||||
Except for the special marks, the rest is 1 point. 1In J-CTO and recharge, the angle was more than or equal to 45°, and it was moderate or severe tortuosity in PROGRESS; 2in PROGRESS, it means lack of collateral for treatment, and in ORA, it means collateral Rentrop grade <2; CTO of the circumflex branch in PROGRESS and CTO of non-LAD in CL; 4previously failed lesion in J-CTO, and in recharge and Cl, it means previous CABG on the target vessel.
Operator-CTO score.
| Clinical variable | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous target vessel CABG history | 1 ◻ | ||
| Angiographic variables | |||
| Blunt occlusion | 1 ◻ | ||
| Calcification | 1 ◻ | ||
| Curvature | 1 ◻ | ||
| Occlusion length ≥20 mm | 1 ◻ | ||
| Distal occlusion | 1 ◻ | ||
| Collateral circulation Rentrop score<2 | 1 ◻ | ||
| In-stent occlusion | 1 ◻ | ||
| Initial occlusion | 1 ◻ | ||
| Operator variables | |||
| Annual CTO-PCI volume ≥60 cases | −1 ◻ | ||
| CTO-PCI time ≥5 years | −1 ◻ | ||
| The overall CTO-PCI success rate of the last year ≥90% | −2 ◻ | ||
| Total | _________ | ||
| ◻simple(≤2) | ◻ medium(3) | ◻ difficult(4) | ◻ extremely difficult(≥5) |
Clinical baseline data of the study population.
| Clinical baseline data | ( |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 62.81 ± 11.27 |
| Male | 104 (80%) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.36 ± 3.13 |
| Hypertension | 93 (71.5%) |
| Hyperlipidemia | 72 (55.4%) |
| Impaired glucose tolerance | 48 (36.9%) |
| Smoking | 61 (46.9%) |
| Previous PCI history | 65 (50%) |
| Previous CABG history | 1 (0.7%) |
| Previous MI history | 40 (30.8%) |
| ≥NYHA III | 44 (33.8%) |
| ≥CKD III | 13 (10%) |
| ≥2 major coronary artery lesions | 123 (94.6%) |
| Clinic symptoms | |
| Stable angina | 14 (10.8%) |
| Unstable angina pectoris | 101 (77.7%) |
| Myocardial infarction | 15 (11.5%) |
| LVEF | |
| ≥50% | 83 (63.9%) |
| 40%∼50% | 35 (26.9%) |
| <40% | 12 (9.2%) |
Angiographic features of the study population.
| Angiographic features | ( |
|---|---|
| CTO target vessel | |
| LAD | 61 (42.4%) |
| LCX | 14 (9.7%) |
| RCA | 68(47.2%) |
| LM | 1 (0.7%) |
| Superior vessels | |
| Right coronary dominance | 89 (68.5%) |
| Left coronary dominance | 16 (12.3%) |
| Balanced type | 25 (19.2%) |
| Collateral circulation, Rentrop<2 | 46 (31.9%) |
| Blunt occlusion | 83 (57.6%) |
| Calcification | 48 (33.3%) |
| Curvature | 131 (91.0%) |
| Occlusion length ≥20 mm | 127 (88.2%) |
| Distal occlusion | 78 (54.2%) |
| Initial occlusion | 69 (47.9%) |
| In-stent occlusion | 20 (13.9%) |
| J-CTO score | 3.10 ± 0.96 |
| PROGRESS-CTO score | 1.32 ± 0.95 |
| ORA score | 1.31 ± 1.09 |
| Recharge score | 3.24 ± 1.02 |
| Operator-CTO score | 1.78 ± 1.46 |
PCI features of the study population.
| PCI features | ( |
|---|---|
| Forward single-guidewire technology | 74 (51.4%) |
| Forward double-guidewire technology | 14 (9.7%) |
| Technology of forward false cavity returning to the true cavity | 6 (4.2%) |
| Retrograde technology | 37 (25.7%) |
| Septal branch channel | 26 (70.3%) |
| Intervention strategy conversion | 48 (33.3%) |
| Intravascular ultrasound guidance/exploration | 36 (25.0%) |
| IABP during the operation | 10 (6.9%) |
| Pericardiocentesis | 3 (2.1%) |
| Postoperative sudden cardiac death | 1 (0.7%) |
| 6F guide tube | 55 (38.2%) |
| 7F guide tube | 89 (61.8%) |
| Number of stents implanted during operation | 2.96 ± 1.28 |
| Total length of the stent implanted during operation | 87.50 ± 39.14 |
| X-ray fluoroscopy time | 67.56 ± 17.92 |
| Dosage of the contrast agent | 179.50 ± 44.08 |
| CTO-PCI technical success | 131 (90.9%) |
| CTO-PCI procedural success | 128 (88.9%) |
Comparison of data between different operator-CTO score groups.
| Simple | Medium | Difficult | Extremely difficult | F |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTO-PCI number | ||||||
| Age (years) | 62.95 ± 10.95 | 61.54 ± 11.79 | 57.69 ± 14.27 | 63.25 ± 12.15 | 0.85 | 0.47 |
| Male | 75 (72.8%) | 22 (91.7%) | 12 (92.3%) | 4 (100%) | 5.96 | 0.10 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.17 ± 3.22 | 24.31 ± 2.98 | 24.68 ± 3.72 | 25.15 ± 2.89 | 0.91 | 0.44 |
| Hypertension | 71 (68.9%) | 16 (66.7%) | 8 (61.5%) | 3 (75.0%) | 0.15 | 0.93 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 51 (49.5%) | 17 (70.8%) | 8 (61.5%) | 3 (75.0%) | 4.33 | 0.12 |
| Impaired glucose tolerance | 36 (35.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 0.03 | 0.99 |
| Smoking | 45 (43.7%) | 11 (45.8%) | 10 (76.9%) | 1 (25.0%) | 2.59 | 0.27 |
| Previous PCI history | 48 (46.6%) | 11 (45.8%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 3.40 | 0.18 |
| Previous CABG history | 0 | 0 | 1 (7.7%) | 0 | 4.33 | 0.12 |
| Previous MI history | 33 (32.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 | 0.50 | 0.78 |
| ≥NYHA III | 34 (33.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 0.03 | 0.98 |
| ≥CKD III | 11 (10.7%) | 1 (4.2%) | 0 | 2 (50.0%) | 5.21 | 0.07 |
| Acute coronary syndrome | 93 (90.3%) | 21 (87.5%) | 12 (92.3%) | 4 (100%) | 0.51 | 0.82 |
| LVEF<40% | 11 (10.7%) | 1 (4.2%) | 0 | 1 (25.0%) | 1.40 | 0.49 |
| Angiographic features | ||||||
| CTO target vessel | 16.56 | <0.05 | ||||
| LAD | 48 (46.6%) | 5 (20.8%) | 7 (53.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | ||
| LCX | 8 (7.8%) | 6 (25.0%) | 0 | 0 | ||
| RCA | 47 (45.6%) | 12 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | ||
| LM | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Collateral circulation, Rentrop, <2 | 25 (24.3%) | 10 (41.7%) | 7 (53.8%) | 4 (100%) | 12.23 | <0.01 |
| Blunt occlusion | 48 (46.6%) | 18 (75.0%) | 13 (100%) | 4 (100%) | 26.95 | <0.01 |
| Calcification | 28 (27.2%) | 12 (50.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 6.19 | <0.05 |
| Curvature | 93 (90.3%) | 23 (95.8%) | 11 (84.6%) | 4 (100%) | 1.05 | 0.59 |
| Occlusion length ≥20 mm | 92 (89.3%) | 20 (83.3%) | 11 (84.6%) | 4 (100%) | 0.62 | 0.73 |
| Distal occlusion | 50 (48.5%) | 14 (58.3%) | 10 (76.9%) | 4 (100%) | 6.92 | <0.05 |
| Initial occlusion | 44 (42.7%) | 13 (54.2%) | 9 (69.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 5.08 | 0.08 |
| In-stent occlusion | 11 (10.7%) | 8 (33.3%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 | 7.90 | <0.05 |
| PCI features | ||||||
| Forward single-guidewire technology | 76 (73.8%) | 13 (54.2%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 13.76 | <0.01 |
| Forward double-guidewire technology | 26 (25.2%) | 8 (33.3%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 | 1.71 | 0.66 |
| Intravascular ultrasound guidance/exploration | 29 (28.2%) | 3 (12.5%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 | 2.87 | 0.24 |
| Intervention strategy conversion | 30 (29.1%) | 10 (41.7%) | 7 (53.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 4.19 | 0.23 |
| 7F guide tube | 57 (55.3%) | 18 (75%) | 12 (92.3%) | 2 (50.0%) | 7.08 | <0.05 |
| X-ray fluoroscopy time | 62.34 ± 16.03 | 83.32 ± 12.07 | 90.86 ± 10.25 | 86 | 2476.11 | <0.01 |
| Dosage of the contrast agent | 166.88 ± 39.30 | 213.18 ± 25.71 | 251.43 ± 31.85 | 210 | 2782.87 | <0.01 |
| CTO-PCI technical success | 99.0% | 87.5% | 53.8% | 25.0% | 173.10 | <0.01 |
| CTO-PCI procedural success | 96.1% | 87.5% | 53.8% | 25.0% | 154.69 | <0.01 |
Comparison of different CTO operators.
| I group | II group | III group | IV group | V group | F/ |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTO-PCI number | |||||||
| Age (years) | 67.00 ± 6.78 | 60.83 ± 9.89 | 59.62 ± 14.22 | 62.23 ± 11.72 | 62.44 ± 10.79 | 0.41 | 0.80 |
| Male | 3 (60.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 12 (92.3%) | 57 (76.0%) | 41 (91.1%) | 5.22 | 0.07 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.78 ± 2.67 | 23.61 ± 2.92 | 24.43 ± 3.62 | 25.31 ± 2.21 | 25.09 ± 2.53 | 1.73 | 0.62 |
| Hypertension | 4 (80.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 57 (76.0%) | 31 (68.9%) | 1.85 | 0.40 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 3 (60.0%) | 5 (83.3%) | 11 (84.6%) | 39 (52.0%) | 23 (51.1%) | 6.16 | 0.05 |
| Impaired glucose tolerance | 2 (40.0%) | 0 | 3 (23.1%) | 30 (40.0%) | 17 (37.8%) | 2.97 | 0.23 |
| Smoking | 0 | 0 | 13 (100.0%) | 35 (46.7%) | 22 (48.9%) | 0.41 | 0.81 |
| Previous PCI history | 1 (20.0%) | 5 (83.3%) | 3 (23.1%) | 31 (41.3%) | 26 (57.8%) | 3.87 | 0.14 |
| Previous CABG history | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1(1.3%) | 0 | 1.31 | 0.52 |
| Previous MI history | 2 (40.0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 6 (46.2%) | 23 (30.7%) | 13 (28.9%) | 0.57 | 0.75 |
| ≥NYHA III | 2 (40.0%) | 0 | 6 (46.2%) | 26 (34.7%) | 17 (37.8%) | 0.17 | 0.92 |
| ≥CKD III | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 0 | 5 (6.7%) | 7 (15.6%) | 2.45 | 0.29 |
| Acute coronary syndrome | 5 (100.0%) | 4 (66.7%) | 13 (100.0%) | 69 (92.0%) | 39 (86.7%) | 0.93 | 0.63 |
| LVEF<40% | 0 | 1 (16.7%) | 2 (15.4%) | 6 (8.0%) | 4 (8.9%) | 0.42 | 0.81 |
| Angiographic features | |||||||
| CTO target vessel | 1.90 | 0.49 | |||||
| LAD | 3 (60.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 29 (38.7%) | 21 (46.7%) | ||
| LCX | 0 | 0 | 2 (15.4%) | 6 (8.0%) | 6 (13.3%) | ||
| RCA | 2 (40.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 39 (52.0%) | 18 (40.0%) | ||
| LM | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (1.3%) | 0 | ||
| Collateral circulation, Rentrop<2 | 2 (40.0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 4 (30.8%) | 23 (30.7%) | 16 (13.3%) | 0.41 | 0.86 |
| Blunt occlusion | 3 (60.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 36 (48.0%) | 34 (75.6%) | 8.89 | 0.01 |
| Calcification | 1 (20.0%) | 0 | 4 (30.8%) | 25 (33.3%) | 27 (60.0%) | 12.33 | <0.01 |
| Curvature | 4 (80.0%) | 5 (83.3%) | 12 (92.3%) | 68 (90.7%) | 42 (93.3%) | 0.82 | 0.63 |
| Occlusion length ≥20 mm | 3 (60.0%) | 6 (100.0%) | 12 (92.3%) | 66 (90.7%) | 40 (88.9%) | 0.35 | 0.98 |
| Distal occlusion | 2 (40.0%) | 2 (33.3%) | 6 (46.2%) | 38 (50.7%) | 30 (66.7%) | 4.71 | 0.10 |
| Initial occlusion | 3 (60.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 34 (45.3%) | 23 (51.1%) | 4.26 | 0.81 |
| In-stent occlusion | 1 (20.0%) | 0 | 0 | 11 (14.7%) | 8 (17.8%) | 3.08 | 0.21 |
| J-CTO score | 2.20 ± 0.84 | 2.33 ± 1.03 | 3.08 ± 1.19 | 3.03 ± 0.92 | 3.42 ± 0.87 | 3.67 | <0.01 |
| PROGRESS score | 1.20 ± 0.84 | 0.67 ± 0.82 | 1.23 ± 1.09 | 1.23 ± 0.97 | 1.60 ± 0.86 | 1.96 | 0.10 |
| ORA score | 1.40 ± 0.55 | 1.00 ± 1.55 | 1.23 ± 0.83 | 1.27 ± 1.12 | 1.42 ± 1.10 | 0.29 | 0.88 |
| Recharge score | 2.60 ± 1.14 | 2.67 ± 1.21 | 3.15 ± 0.99 | 3.12 ± 0.94 | 3.6 ± 1.03 | 2.80 | <0.05 |
| Operator score | 3.80 ± 0.84 | 2.33 ± 1.86 | 2.77 ± 1.30 | 2.03 ± 1.16 | 0.73 ± 1.32 | 14.21 | <0.01 |
| PCI features | |||||||
| Forward single-guidewire technology | 1 (20.0%) | 5 (83.3%) | 12 (92.3%) | 53 (70.7%) | 23 (51.1%) | 5.95 | 0.05 |
| Forward double-guidewire technology | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 1 (7.7%) | 15 (20.0%) | 20 (44.4%) | 11.51 | <0.01 |
| Intravascular ultrasound guidance/exploration | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 2 (15.4%) | 13 (17.3%) | 19 (42.2%) | 10.36 | <0.01 |
| Intervention strategy conversion | 1 (20.0%) | 0 | 4 (30.8%) | 24 (32.0%) | 19 (42.2%) | 3.35 | 0.19 |
| 7F guide tube | 3 (20.0%) | 4 (66.7%) | 10 (76.9%) | 43 (57.3%) | 29 (64.4%) | 1.60 | 0.45 |
| X-ray fluoroscopy time | 78.50 ± 27.58 | 73.80 ± 26.73 | 78.46 ± 11.91 | 67.35 ± 17.66 | 63.37 ± 17.45 | 10.12 | <0.05 |
| Dosage of the contrast agent | 215.00 ± 91.92 | 192.00 ± 55.41 | 197.69 ± 42.65 | 178.68 ± 44.25 | 172.21 ± 40.51 | 4.53 | 0.34 |
| CTO-PCI technical success | 40.0% | 83.3% | 100% | 90.7% | 95.6% | 100.25 | <0.01 |
| CTO-PCI procedural success | 40.0% | 83.3% | 100% | 89.3% | 91.1% | 141.29 | <0.01 |
Figure 1(a) Operator work curve. AUC = 0.9011 (95%CI: 0.821−0.982, P < 0.01). (b) The relationship between operator-CTO score and technical success.
Figure 2(a) J-CTO score predicts the curve of technical success. (b) Progress-CTO score predicts the curve of ROC. (c) ORA score predicts the curve of ROC. (d) Recharge score predicts the curve of technical success. (e) The ROC curve of the operator score was compared with that of each scoring system.