The Hybrid Approach to Intervention of Chronic Total Occlusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “hybrid” approach to chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed to provide guidance on optimal crossing strategy selection. Dual angiography remains the cornerstone of clinical decision making in CTO PCI. Four angiographic parameters are assessed: (a) morphology of the proximal cap (clear-cut or ambiguous); (b) occlusion length; (c) distal vessel size and presence of bifurcations beyond the distal cap; and (d) location and suitability of a retrograde conduit (collateral channels or bypass grafts) for retrograde access. Antegrade wire escalation is favored for short (<20 mm) occlusions, usually escalating rapidly from a soft tapered-tip polymer-jacketed guidewire to a stiff polymer-jacketed or tapered-tip guidewire. Antegrade dissection/re-entry is favored in long (≥20 mm long) occlusions, trying to minimize the dissection length by re-entering into the distal true lumen immediately after the occlusion. Primary retrograde approach is preferred for lesions with an ambiguous proximal cap, poor distal target, good interventional collaterals, and heavy calcification, as well as chronic kidney disease. The “hybrid” approach advocates early change between strategies to enable CTO crossing in the most efficacious, efficient, and safe way. Several early studies are demonstrating high success and low complication rates with use of the “hybrid” approach, supporting its expanding use in CTO PCI. Keywords: Chronic total occlusion, percutaneous coronary intervention, retrograde.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".