MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415173263 · doi:10.1002/ccd.70240

Drug‐Coated Balloons in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the PROGRESS‐CTO Registry

2025· article· en· W4415173263 on OpenAlexaff
Deniz Mutlu, Athanasios Rempakos, Dimitrios Strepkos, Pedro E P Carvalho, Michaella Alexandrou, Eleni Kladou, Özgür Selim Ser, Lorenzo Azzalini, Farouc A. Jaffer, Luiz F. Ybarra, Ömer Göktekín, Mahmut Uluganyan, Ramazan Özdemir, Basem Elbarouni, Khaldoon Alaswad, Rhian Davies, Ahmed ElGuindy, Cüneyt Koçaş, Sefa Sural, Paul Poommipanit, Jarrod Frizzel, Mir B. Basir, Leah Raj, Laura Young, Bavana V. Rangan, Olga Mastrodemos, Jaskanwal Deep Singh Sara, Sandeep Jalli, Yader Sandoval, M. Nicholas Burke, Emmanouil S. Brilakis, Şevket Görgülü

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercutaneousMaceOcclusionPercutaneous coronary interventionCoronary occlusionInterventional cardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). AIMS: To assess the frequency and outcomes of DCB use in CTO PCI. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the frequency and outcomes of DCB use in a large, multicenter CTO PCI registry. METHODS: We analyzed 12,146 patients who underwent 12,157 successful CTO PCIs at 59 centers from 2018 to 2025. RESULTS: DCBs were used in 454 patients (3.7%) with increasing frequency over time (p = 0.020). A DCB-only strategy was used in 48.4% of the patients and a hybrid strategy combining DCBs and drug-eluting stents (DES) was used in 51.6% of patients. Patients treated with DCB (both strategies) had low prevalence of comorbidities. Compared with the DES cases, DCB only cases had favorable angiographic characteristics, lower mean J-CTO (Japanese CTO) score (1.83 ± 1.03 vs. 2.27 ± 1.23; p < 0.001), and similar technical success (96.3% vs. 97.3%; p = 0.640), and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The hybrid and DCB-only strategies had comparable technical success and in-hospital MACE. During a median follow-up of 323 (170-429) days, DCB only cases had lower MACE than the other strategies (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.96, p = 0.040). After multivariable adjustment, the association remained significant (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.92, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: DCBs are increasingly being used in CTO PCI. A DCB only strategy was used in less complex lesions and was associated with similar technical success and in-hospital MACE compared with hybrid or DES strategies. A DCB only strategy was associated with lower long-term MACE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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