MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408330494 · doi:10.1002/ccd.31472

Traditional Versus Dual Lumen Microcatheter‐Assisted Parallel Wiring in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the PROGRESS‐CTO Registry

2025· article· en· W4408330494 on OpenAlexaff
Deniz Mutlu, Dimitrios Strepkos, Özgür Selim Ser, Pedro E P Carvalho, Michaella Alexandrou, Sandeep Jalli, Lorenzo Azzalini, Luiz F. Ybarra, Khaldoon Alaswad, Farouc A. Jaffer, Rhian Davies, Bavana V. Rangan, Yader Sandoval, M. Nicholas Burke, Şevket Görgülü, Emmanouil S. Brilakis

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIMaceInternal medicinePropensity score matchingOdds ratioCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseConfidence intervalSurgeryLumen (anatomy)PercutaneousMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of traditional versus dual lumen microcatheter (DLMC)-assisted parallel wiring in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study. AIMS: To compare traditional versus dual lumen microcatheter (DLMC)-assisted parallel wiring. METHODS: We compared the clinical and angiographic characteristics and outcomes of traditional versus DLMC-assisted parallel wiring after failed antegrade wiring (AW) in a large, multicenter CTO PCI registry. RESULTS: Among 1353 CTO PCIs with failed AW with a single wire, traditional parallel wiring (n = 1081) or DLMC-assisted parallel wiring (n = 272) were utilized at the operator's discretion. The baseline characteristics of patients were similar in both groups except for higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, and lower prevalence of hypertension, prior heart failure, prior MI and cerebrovascular disease in DLMC patients. Lesions in the DLMC group were more likely to have proximal cap ambiguity, side branch at the proximal cap, blunt/no stump, moderate/severe calcification, and had higher J-CTO score (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3, p < 0.001). Technical (87.1% vs. 74.3%, p < 0.001) and procedural (83.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.001) success and the incidence of in-hospital major cardiac adverse events (MACE) (4.8% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.020) were higher in the DLMC group. In propensity score matching analysis, DLMC-assisted wiring was associated with higher technical success (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-3.54, p = 0.002) and no significant difference in MACE (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.89-4.50, p = 0.093). CONCLUSIONS: In lesions that could not be crossed with AW, DLMC-assisted parallel wiring was associated with a higher likelihood of technical success, without an increased risk of MACE, compared with traditional parallel wiring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207