Chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention of anomalous coronary arteries: insights from the PROGRESS CTO registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited information about the frequency and outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in anomalous coronary arteries (ACA). METHODS: We examined the clinical and angiographic characteristics and procedural outcomes of CTO PCI in ACA among 14,173 patients who underwent 14,470 CTO PCIs at 46 US and non-US centers between 2012 and 2023. RESULTS: Of 14,470 CTO PCIs, 36 (0.24%) were CTO PCIs in an ACA. ACA patients had similar baseline characteristics as those without an ACA. The type of ACA in which the CTO lesion was found were as follows: anomalous origin of the right coronary artery (ARCA) (17, 48.5%), anomalous origin of left circumflex coronary artery (9, 25.7%), left anterior descending artery and left circumflex artery with separate origins (4, 11.4%), anomalous origin of the left anterior descending artery (2, 5.7%), dual left anterior descending artery (2, 5.7%) and woven coronary artery 1 (2.8%). The Japan CTO score was similar between both groups (2.17 ± 1.32 vs 2.38 ± 1.26, p = 0.30). The target CTO in ACA patients was more likely to have moderate/severe tortuosity (44% vs 28%, p = 0.035), required more often use of retrograde approach (27% vs 12%, p = 0.028), and was associated with longer procedure (142.5 min vs 112.00 min [74.0, 164.0], p = 0.028) and fluoroscopy (56 min [40, 79 ml] vs 42 min [25, 67], p = 0.014) time and higher contrast volume (260 ml [190, 450] vs 200 ml [150, 300], p = 0.004) but had similar procedural (91.4% vs 85.6%, p = 0.46) and technical (91.4% vs 87.0%, p = 0.59) success. No major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were seen in ACA patients (0% [0] vs 1.9% [281] in non-ACA patients, p = 1.00). Two coronary perforations were reported in ACA CTO PCI (p = 0.7 vs. non-ACA CTO PCI). CONCLUSIONS: CTO PCI of ACA comprise 0.24% of all CTO PCIs performed in the PROGRESS CTO registry and was associated with higher procedural complexity but similar technical and procedural success rates and similar MACE compared with non-ACA CTO PCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".