Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Present and Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved into a subspecialty of interventional cardiology. Using a variety of antegrade and retrograde techniques, experienced operators currently achieve success rates of 85% to 90%, with an incidence of major periprocedural complications of ≈2% to 3%. Several developments in equipment (new microcatheters and guidewires, novel reentry devices), imaging (computed tomography angiography guidance, intravascular imaging for reentry), techniques (intraocclusion contrast injection, advanced subintimal tracking and reentry), and artificial intelligence (automated computed tomography image analysis and prediction of the likelihood of crossing success with various techniques) could further improve outcomes. Global collaboration and rapid dissemination of new developments accelerate the pace of progress. While innovation is exciting and necessary, adhering to the basic principles of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (such as continual assessment of risks and benefits, meticulous angiographic review, and use of dual injection) remains critical for achieving optimal patient outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".