Outcomes with retrograde versus antegrade chronic total occlusion revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of retrograde versus antegrade approach in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: The retrograde approach has increased the success rate of CTO PCI but has been associated with a higher risk for complications. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies published between 2000 and August 2019 comparing the in-hospital and long-term outcomes with retrograde versus antegrade CTO PCI. RESULTS: Twelve observational studies (10,240 patients) met our inclusion criteria (retrograde approach 2,789 patients, antegrade approach 7,451 patients). Lesions treated with the retrograde approach had higher J-CTO score (2.8 vs. 1.9, p < .001). Retrograde CTO PCI was associated with a lower success rate (80.9% vs. 87.4%, p < .001). Both approaches had similar in-hospital mortality, urgent revascularization, and cerebrovascular events. Retrograde CTO PCI was associated with higher risk of in-hospital myocardial infarction (MI; odds ratio [OR] 2.37, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.7, 3.32, p < .001), urgent pericardiocentesis (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.41-4.51, p = .002), and contrast-induced nephropathy (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.47-3.08; p < .001). During a mean follow-up of 48 ± 31 months retrograde crossing had similar mortality (OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.84-3.81, p = .13), but a higher incidence of MI (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.1-3.88, p = .02), target vessel revascularization (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.49-2.46, p < .001), and target lesion revascularization (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.33-3.28, p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with antegrade CTO PCI, retrograde CTO PCI is performed in more complex lesions and is associated with a higher risk for acute and long-term adverse events.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".