Outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Insights from the <scp>LATAM CTO</scp> registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with and without prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. BACKGROUND: Data on the outcomes of CTO PCI in patients with versus without CABG remains limited and with scarce representation from developing regions like Latin America. METHODS: We evaluated patients undergoing CTO PCI in 42 centers participating in the LATAM CTO registry between 2008 and 2020. Statistical analyses were stratified according to CABG status. The outcomes of interest were technical and procedural success and in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). RESULTS: A total of 1662 patients were included (n = 1411 [84.9%] no-CABG and n = 251 [15.1%] prior-CABG). Compared with no-CABG, those with prior-CABG were older (67 ± 11 vs. 64 ± 11 years; p < 0.001), had more comorbidities and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (52.8 ± 12.8% vs. 54.4 ± 11.7%; p = 0.042). Anatomic complexity was higher in the prior-CABG group (J-CTO score 2.46 ± 1.19 vs. 2.10 ± 1.22; p < 0.001; PROGRESS CTO score 1.28 ± 0.89 vs. 0.91 ± 0.85; p < 0.001). Absence of CABG was associated with lower risk of technical and procedural failure (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43-0.85 and OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.83, respectively). No significant differences in the incidence of in-hospital MACCE (3.8% no-CABG vs. 4.4% prior-CABG; p = 0.766) were observed between groups. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary multicenter CTO-PCI registry from Latin America, prior-CABG patients had more comorbidities, higher anatomical complexity, lower success, and similar in-hospital adverse event rates compared with no-CABG patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".