Predictors of Successful Primary Antegrade Wiring in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antegrade wiring is the most commonly used chronic total occlusion (CTO) crossing technique. METHODS: Using data from the PROGRESS CTO registry (Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention; Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02061436), we examined the clinical and angiographic characteristics and procedural outcomes of CTO percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed using a primary antegrade wiring strategy. RESULTS: Of the 13 563 CTO PCIs performed at 46 centers between 2012 and 2023, a primary antegrade wiring strategy was used in 11 332 (83.6%). Upon multivariable logistic regression analysis, proximal cap ambiguity (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95% CI, 0.46-0.59), side branch at the proximal cap (OR: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95), blunt/no stump (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.47-0.59), increasing lesion length (OR [per 10 mm increase]: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81), moderate to severe calcification (OR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81), moderate to severe proximal tortuosity (OR: 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75), bifurcation at the distal cap (OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.73), left anterior descending artery CTO (OR [vs right coronary artery]: 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.62) and left circumflex CTO (OR [vs right coronary artery]: 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.40), non-in-stent restenosis lesion (OR: 0.56; 95% CI, 0.49-0.65), and good distal landing zone (OR: 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.32) were independently associated with primary antegrade wiring crossing success. CONCLUSIONS: The use of antegrade wiring as the initial strategy was high (83.6%) in our registry. We identified several parameters associated with primary antegrade wiring success.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".