In‐stent chronic total occlusion angioplasty in the <scp>LATAM‐CTO</scp> registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To inform about contemporary PCI practice of in-stent (IS) chronic total occlusions (CTO) from a large international registry in Latin America. BACKGROUND: IS-CTO represent a distinctive challenge for PCI, but literature is limited and restricted to high-resource regions of the world. METHODS: Patients undergoing CTO PCI enrolled in the LATAM CTO registry from 42 centers in eight countries were included. We analyzed demographics, angiographic, procedure technique, success and postprocedural outcomes between IS-CTO and non-IS-CTO PCI. RESULTS: From 1,565 patients IS-CTO was present in 181 patients (11.5%). IS-CTO patients had higher prevalence of diabetes and hypertension than patients without IS-CTO. IS-CTOs had less calcification (32.5 vs. 46.7%, p < .001), lower prevalence of a proximal branch (36.3 vs. 50.1%, p < .001), more likely to be ostial (24.4 vs. 18.1%, p = .042), were longer (28.5 vs. 25.2 mm, p = .062), and had less interventional collaterals (49.1 vs. 57.3%, p = .038) compared with non-IS-CTO. CTO complexity scores were similar between both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the initial or successful strategy between IS-CTO and non-IS-CTO PCI. Technical success rates remained high in IS-CTO (86.7%) and non-IS-CTO (83.1%, p = .230). There was no independent association between IS-CTO and technical success in multivariable analysis. There were no differences between IS-CTO and non-IS-CTO groups for in-hospital clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary, multicenter, and international registry from Latin America, IS-CTO PCI is frequent and has comparable technical success and safety profile compared to non-IS-CTO PCI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".