Procedural and longer-term outcomes of wire- versus device-based antegrade dissection and re-entry techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions

Abstract

BackgroundThere are few data regarding the procedural and follow-up outcomes of different antegrade dissection/re-entry (ADR) techniques for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MethodsWe compiled a multicenter registry of consecutive patients undergoing ADR-based CTO PCI at four high-volume specialized institutions. Patients were divided according to the specific ADR technique used: subintimal tracking and re-entry (STAR), limited antegrade subintimal tracking (LAST), or device-based with the CrossBoss/Stingray system (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization) on follow-up were the main outcome of this study. Independent predictors of MACE were sought with Cox regression analysis. ResultsA total of 223 patients were included (STAR n=39, LAST n=68, CrossBoss/Stingray n=116). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Technical and procedural success was lower with STAR (59% and 59%), as compared with LAST (96% and 96%) and CrossBoss/Stingray (89% and 87%; p<0.001 for both). At 24-month follow-up, MACE rates were higher in STAR (15.4%) and LAST (17.5%), as compared with device-based ADR with CrossBoss/Stingray (4.3%, p=0.02), driven by TVR (7.7% vs. 15.5% vs. 3.1%, respectively; p=0.02). Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified wire-based ADR (STAR and LAST) and total stent length as independent predictors of MACE. ConclusionsIn this multicenter cohort of patients undergoing CTO PCI with ADR techniques, STAR had lower success rates, as compared with the CrossBoss/Stingray system and LAST. The CrossBoss/Stingray system was independently associated with lower risk of MACE on follow-up, as compared with wire-based ADR techniques.