Balloon‐assisted subintimal entry (BASE) in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the use of the balloon-assisted subintimal entry (BASE) technique in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We analyzed the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and outcomes of 155 CTO PCIs that utilized the BASE technique at 31 US and non-US centers between 2016 and 2023. RESULTS: The BASE technique was used in 155 (7.9%) of 1968 antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) cases performed during the study period. The mean age was 66 ± 10 years, 88.9% of the patients were men, and the prevalence of diabetes (44.6%), hypertension (90.5%), and dyslipidemia (88.7%) was high. Compared with 1813 ADR cases that did not use BASE, the target vessel of the BASE cases was more commonly the RCA and less commonly the LAD. Lesions requiring BASE had longer occlusion length (42 ± 23 vs. 37 ± 23 mm, p = 0.011), higher Japanese CTO (J-CTO) (3.4 ± 1.0 vs. 3.0 ± 1.1, p < 0.001) and PROGRESS-CTO (Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention chronic total occlusion) (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.5 ± 1.0, p = 0.008) scores, and were more likely to have proximal cap ambiguity, side branch at the proximal cap, blunt/no stump, moderate to severe calcification, and proximal tortuosity. Technical (71.6% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.334) and procedural success (71.6% vs. 72.8%, p = 0.821), as well as major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (1.3% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.124), were similar in ADR cases that used BASE and those that did not. CONCLUSIONS: The BASE technique is used in CTOs with longer occlusion length, higher J-CTO score, and more complex angiographic characteristics, and is associated with moderate success but also low 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) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".