One‐year outcomes after successful chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: The impact of dissection re‐entry techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to determine clinical outcomes 1 year after successful chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI and, in particular, whether use of dissection and re-entry strategies affects clinical outcomes. Hybrid approaches have increased the procedural success of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but longer-term outcomes are unknown, particularly in relation to dissection and re-entry techniques. Data were collected for consecutive CTO PCIs performed by hybrid-trained operators from 7 United Kingdom (UK) centres between 2012 and 2014. The primary endpoint (death, myocardial infarction, unplanned target vessel revascularization) was measured at 12 months along with angina status. One-year follow up data were available for 96% of successful cases (n = 805). In total, 85% of patients had a CCS angina class of 2-4 prior to CTO PCI. Final successful procedural strategy was antegrade wire escalation 48%; antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) 21%; retrograde wire escalation 5%; retrograde dissection and re-entry (RDR) 26%. Overall, 47% of CTOs were recanalized using dissection and re-entry strategies. During a mean follow up of 11.5 ± 3.8 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 8.6% (n = 69) of patients (10.3% (n = 39/375) in DART group and 7.0% (n = 30/430) in wire-based cases). The majority of patients (88%) had no or minimal angina (CCS class 0 or 1). ADR and RDR were used more frequently in more complex cases with greater disease burden, however, the only independent predictor of the primary endpoint was lesion length. CTO PCI in complex lesions using the hybrid approach is safe, effective and has a low one-year adverse event rate. The method used to recanalize arteries was not associated with adverse outcomes. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".