Traditional Versus Dual Lumen Microcatheter-Assisted Parallel Wiring in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the PROGRESS-CTO Registry.

IF 2.1 3区医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Pub Date : 2025-03-10 DOI:10.1002/ccd.31472

Deniz Mutlu, Dimitrios Strepkos, Ozgur Selim Ser, Pedro E P Carvalho, Michaella Alexandrou, Sandeep Jalli, Lorenzo Azzalini, Luiz Ybarra, Khaldoon Alaswad, Farouc A Jaffer, Rhian Davies, Bavana V Rangan, Yader Sandoval, M Nicholas Burke, Sevket Gorgulu, Emmanouil S Brilakis

{"title":"Traditional Versus Dual Lumen Microcatheter-Assisted Parallel Wiring in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the PROGRESS-CTO Registry.","authors":"Deniz Mutlu, Dimitrios Strepkos, Ozgur Selim Ser, Pedro E P Carvalho, Michaella Alexandrou, Sandeep Jalli, Lorenzo Azzalini, Luiz Ybarra, Khaldoon Alaswad, Farouc A Jaffer, Rhian Davies, Bavana V Rangan, Yader Sandoval, M Nicholas Burke, Sevket Gorgulu, Emmanouil S Brilakis","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The effectiveness and safety of traditional versus dual lumen microcatheter (DLMC)-assisted parallel wiring in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study.Aims: To compare traditional versus dual lumen microcatheter (DLMC)-assisted parallel wiring.Methods: We compared the clinical and angiographic characteristics and outcomes of traditional versus DLMC-assisted parallel wiring after failed antegrade wiring (AW) in a large, multicenter CTO PCI registry.Results: Among 1353 CTO PCIs with failed AW with a single wire, traditional parallel wiring (n = 1081) or DLMC-assisted parallel wiring (n = 272) were utilized at the operator's discretion. The baseline characteristics of patients were similar in both groups except for higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, and lower prevalence of hypertension, prior heart failure, prior MI and cerebrovascular disease in DLMC patients. Lesions in the DLMC group were more likely to have proximal cap ambiguity, side branch at the proximal cap, blunt/no stump, moderate/severe calcification, and had higher J-CTO score (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3, p < 0.001). Technical (87.1% vs. 74.3%, p < 0.001) and procedural (83.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.001) success and the incidence of in-hospital major cardiac adverse events (MACE) (4.8% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.020) were higher in the DLMC group. In propensity score matching analysis, DLMC-assisted wiring was associated with higher technical success (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-3.54, p = 0.002) and no significant difference in MACE (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.89-4.50, p = 0.093).Conclusions: In lesions that could not be crossed with AW, DLMC-assisted parallel wiring was associated with a higher likelihood of technical success, without an increased risk of MACE, compared with traditional parallel wiring.","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31472","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness and safety of traditional versus dual lumen microcatheter (DLMC)-assisted parallel wiring in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study.

Aims: To compare traditional versus dual lumen microcatheter (DLMC)-assisted parallel wiring.

Methods: We compared the clinical and angiographic characteristics and outcomes of traditional versus DLMC-assisted parallel wiring after failed antegrade wiring (AW) in a large, multicenter CTO PCI registry.

Results: Among 1353 CTO PCIs with failed AW with a single wire, traditional parallel wiring (n = 1081) or DLMC-assisted parallel wiring (n = 272) were utilized at the operator's discretion. The baseline characteristics of patients were similar in both groups except for higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, and lower prevalence of hypertension, prior heart failure, prior MI and cerebrovascular disease in DLMC patients. Lesions in the DLMC group were more likely to have proximal cap ambiguity, side branch at the proximal cap, blunt/no stump, moderate/severe calcification, and had higher J-CTO score (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3, p < 0.001). Technical (87.1% vs. 74.3%, p < 0.001) and procedural (83.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.001) success and the incidence of in-hospital major cardiac adverse events (MACE) (4.8% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.020) were higher in the DLMC group. In propensity score matching analysis, DLMC-assisted wiring was associated with higher technical success (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-3.54, p = 0.002) and no significant difference in MACE (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.89-4.50, p = 0.093).

Conclusions: In lesions that could not be crossed with AW, DLMC-assisted parallel wiring was associated with a higher likelihood of technical success, without an increased risk of MACE, compared with traditional parallel wiring.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 医学-心血管系统

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

8.70%

发文量

419

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.