Use of the Ostial Flash Balloon in Aorto-Ostial Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of the Ostial Flash balloon (Ostial Corporation) has received limited study in aorto-ostial chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI). METHODS: The authors evaluated the outcomes of Ostial Flash balloon use in a large CTO-PCI registry (PROGRESS-CTO, NCT02061436). RESULTS: The Ostial Flash balloon was used in 54 of 907 aorto-ostial CTO PCIs in 905 patients (6.0%). The mean patient age was 65.1 ± 10.7 and 80.6% were men, with a high prevalence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, prior PCI, and prior myocardial infarction. The mean occlusion length was 40.5 ± 25.1 mm, 52.2% had moderate to severe calcification, and the mean Japanese-CTO score was 2.8 ± 1.1. Lesions treated with the Ostial Flash balloon were more frequently located in the right aorto-ostium (79.6% vs 66.0%, P = .002). In the Ostial Flash group, the most common successful CTO crossing technique was antegrade wiring (46.3%), followed by the retrograde approach (40.7%); intravascular imaging was used in 61.1% of cases. Technical success (92.6% vs 87.9%, P = .300) and the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (5.6% vs 3.6%, P = .450) was similar in the Ostial Flash vs non-Ostial Flash patients, respectively. In multivariable analysis, PCI of proximal right coronary artery CTOs was independently associated with use of the Ostial Flash balloon (odds ratio 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8; P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: The Ostial Flash balloon is infrequently used in aorto-ostial CTO PCI. Although there were no differences in MACE with use of the balloon, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine its effectiveness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".