Impact of proximal cap ambiguity on the procedural techniques and outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PROGRESS‐CTO Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proximal cap ambiguity is a key parameter in the global chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) crossing algorithm. METHODS: We examined the baseline characteristics and procedural outcomes of 9718 CTO PCIs performed in 9498 patients at 41 US and non-US centers between 2012 and 2022. RESULTS: Proximal cap ambiguity was present in 35% of CTO lesions. Patients whose lesions had proximal cap ambiguity were more likely to have had prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (37% vs. 24%; p < 0.001). Lesions with proximal cap ambiguity were more complex with higher J-CTO score (3.1 ± 1.0 vs. 2.0 ± 1.2; p < 0.001) and lower technical (79% vs. 90%; p < 0.001) and procedural (77% vs. 89%; p < 0.001) success rates compared with nonambiguous CTO lesions. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was higher in cases with proximal cap ambiguity (2.5% vs. 1.7%; p < 0.001). The retrograde approach was more commonly used among cases with ambiguous proximal cap (50% vs. 21%; p < 0.001) and was more likely to be the final successful crossing strategy (29% vs. 13%; p < 0.001). The antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) "move-the-cap" techniques were also more common among cases with proximal cap ambiguity. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal cap ambiguity in CTO lesions is associated with higher utilization of the retrograde approach and ADR, lower technical and procedural success rates, and higher incidence of in-hospital MACE.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".