Back

Drug-Coated versus conventional balloon to improve recanalization of a coronary chronic total occlusion after failed attempt.

Amat-Santos, I. J.; Marengo, G.; Ybarra, L. F.; Fernandez-Diaz, J. A.; Regueiro, A.; Gutierrez-Barios, A.; Martin-Moreiras, J.; Sanchez-Luna, J. P.; Gonzalez-Garcia, J. C.; Fernandez-Cordon, C.; Carrasco-Moraleja, M.; Rinfret, S.

2023-07-12 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2023.07.10.23292478 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundChronic total occlusion (CTO) plaque modification (CTO-PM) is often used for unsuccessful CTO interventions. MethodsMulticenter, prospective study including consecutive patients with failed CTO recanalization. At the end of the failed procedure, patients received either conventional (CB) or drug-coated balloon (DCB) or at the operators discretion for CTO-PM and underwent new attempt of CTO recanalization [~]3 months later. ResultsA total of 55 patients were enrolled (DCB: 22; CB 33), with a median age of 66 years. Median J-score was 3 and CCS angina class III-IV was present in 40% of the patients. After the first CTO-PCI attempt no in hospital cardiac deaths were registered, with 3.6% rates of in-hospital myocardial infarction. The success rate of the second CTP PCI attempt was 86.8%, with periprocedural complication rate of 5.7% and without difference between DCB and CB groups. Compared with CB, in the DCB group, the second CTO-PCI required a shorter median fluoroscopy time (33 vs 60min, p<0.001), lower contrast volume (170 vs 321cc, p<0.001) and lower radiation dose (1.7 vs 3.3Gy, p<0.001). At 1-year follow up outcomes were comparable between the 2 strategies, target lesion failure occurred in 5.7% and major adverse cardiovascular events in 11.2%. ConclusionsPM after CTO recanalization failure is safe and warrants high success rates when 2nd attempt is performed. A DCB strategy for CTO-PM does not seem to ensure higher success or better clinical outcomes, but its use was associated with simpler staged procedures.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.