Primary versus rescue retrograde approach for chronic total coronary occlusion.

Abstract

We aimed to assess the advantages of using the retrograde approach as an initial strategy rather than as a rescue strategy for complex chronic total occlusions (CTOs). Even for complex CTOs where a retrograde approach is deemed necessary, an antegrade approach is frequently used as an initial strategy in real-world practice. We evaluated 352 retrograde procedures for CTO conducted at our high-volume center between January 2007 and January 2019. Procedural efficiency and safety was assessed based on the guidewire manipulation time (GWMT) and the occurrence of procedure-related adverse events for the primary retrograde approach (PRA) and the rescue retrograde approach (RRA). PRA and RRA were used in 191 (54.3%) and 161 (45.7%) of the CTO procedures, respectively. The complexity of the CTO lesion was significantly higher in the PRA group than in the RRA group (Japanese-CTO score, 2.62 ± 1.07 vs. 2.38 ± 1.06, p=0.037). The technical success rate of two groups was similar (p=0.47). The median GWMT required for PRA was significantly shorter than that for RRA (85 [interquartile range, 55-126] vs. 120 [85-157] min, p < 0.001). The total duration of the procedure and fluoroscopic time were shorter, and the number of guidewires and amount of contrast used during the index procedure were smaller in the PRA group. The incidence of procedure-related adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups. PRA showed higher procedural efficiency than RRA with comparable safety. Opting for PRA for complex CTOs might be a rational decision to enhance the procedural efficiency.