Single vs. multiple operators for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary interventions: From the PROGRESS‐CTO Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the impact of a second attending operator on chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed the association between multiple operators (MOs) (>1 attending operator) and procedural outcomes of 9296 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2021 at 37 centers. RESULTS: CTO PCI was performed by a single operator (SO) in 85% of the cases and by MOs in 15%. Mean patient age was 64.4 ± 10 years and 81% were men. SO cases were more complex with higher Japan-CTO (2.38 ± 1.29 vs. 2.28 ± 1.20, p = 0.005) and Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention scores (1.13 ± 1.01 vs. 0.97 ± 0.93, p < 0.001) compared with MO cases. Procedural time (131 [87, 181] vs. 112 [72, 167] min, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (49 [31, 76] vs. 42 [25, 68] min, p < 0.001), air kerma radiation dose (2.32 vs. 2.10, p < 0.001), and contrast volume (230 vs. 210, p < 0.001) were higher in MO cases. Cases performed by MOs and SO had similar technical (86% vs. 86%, p = 0.9) and procedural success rates (84% vs. 85%, p = 0.7), as well as major adverse complication event rates (MACE 2.17% vs. 2.42%, p = 0.6). On multivariable analyses, MOs were not associated with higher technical success or lower MACE rates. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary, multicenter registry, 15% of CTO PCI cases were performed by multiple operators. Despite being more complex, SO cases had lower procedural and fluoroscopy times, and similar technical and procedural success and risk of complications compared with MO cases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".