Device-based antegrade dissection re-entry versus parallel wire techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions.

Abstract

Device-based antegrade dissection re-entry (ADR) and parallel wire technique (PWT) are two important techniques in the antegrade approach in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of chronic total occlusion (CTO). The study is aimed to compare the procedural and mid-term outcomes between device-based ADR using the CrossBoss/Stingray system and PWT in CTO PCI. Data was retrospectively collected from consecutive patients who underwent CTO PCI using device-based ADR or PWT. CTO due to in-stent restenosis were excluded. A total of 273 patients were included in the study (n = 55 in device-based ADR group, n = 218 in PWT group). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups except for higher prevalence of prior PCI and lower level of lipid profile in the ADR group. Moreover, although patients in the ADR group showed higher contrast volume (441.6 ± 162.4 mL vs. 361.5 ± 142.1 mL, p < 0.001), more intravascular ultrasound guidance (50.9% vs. 22.9%, p < 0.001), more guidewires used (4.6 ± 1.4 vs. 3.4 ± 1.2, p < 0.001) and higher troponin T level after PCI (0.167 vs. 0.087, p = 0.004), the technical success, procedural success and in-hospital complications were similar between the two groups. During a median follow-up of 1 year, the ADR group showed no difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE, including all cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia driven target vessel revascularization) (7.3% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.150) as compared with the PWT group. In the documented center, the use of device-based ADR for CTO PCI showed no difference in in-hospital complications and mid-term MACE as compared with PWT, despite higher procedure complexity in ADR group.