Retrograde chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention via ipsilateral collaterals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited data on retrograde chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via ipsilateral epicardial collaterals (IEC). AIMS: To compare the clinical and angiographic characteristics, and outcomes of retrograde CTO PCI via IEC versus other collaterals in a large multicenter registry. METHODS: Observational cohort study from the Prospective Global registry for the study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO). RESULTS: Of 4466 retrograde cases performed between 2012 and 2023, crossing through IEC was attempted in 191 (4.3%) cases with 50% wiring success. The most common target vessel in the IEC group was the left circumflex (50%), in comparison to other retrograde cases, where the right coronary artery was most common (70%). The Japanese CTO score was similar between the two groups (3.13 ± 1.23 vs. 3.06 ± 1.06, p = 0.456); however, the IEC group had a higher Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO) score (1.95 ± 1.02 vs. 1.27 ± 0.92, p < 0.0001). The most used IEC guidewire was the SUOH 03 (39%), and the most frequently used microcatheter was the Caravel (43%). Dual injection was less common in IEC cases (66% vs. 89%, p < 0.0001). Technical (76% vs. 79%, p = 0.317) and procedural success rates (74% vs. 79%, p = 0.281) were not different between the two groups. However, IEC cases had a higher procedural complications rate (25.8% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.0008), including perforations (17.3% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.0001), pericardiocentesis (3.1% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.018), and dissection/thrombus of the donor vessel (3.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The use of IEC for retrograde CTO PCI was associated with similar technical and procedural success rates when compared with other retrograde cases, but higher incidence of periprocedural complications.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".