Aggressive CTO PCI strategy improved the success rate but not clinical outcomes for coronary chronic total occlusion patients : Korean single center experience

• Published in: European heart journal Vol. 44; no. Supplement_2
• Main Authors: Jung, A H, Jin, C D, Youk, G S, Lee, K M, Lim, K H, Jo, S Y, Cho, Y R, Park, K I, Park, J S, Park, T H, Kim, M H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 09-11-2023
• ISSN: 0195-668X; 1522-9645
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.1241

Abstract
Background
Successful coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) recanalization was well associated with lesion characteristics, technique and devices development. Indeed, the operators’ experience and new device usage are also associated with success rate. There is few data whether this technical advancement and/or new therapeutic strategy adoption influence the procedural success rate between Japan and Korea.
Purpose
This study sought to compare the success rate and its clinical outcome between aggressive strategy (joint PCI with Japanese CTO experts, never give up strategy) who adopted new devices and technology and conventional strategy in a Korean single center.
Methods
A total of 670 target lesions underwent PCI at a single center between September 1999 and February 2020, divided into conventional strategy (control group, n = 508) and aggressive strategy (Joint-PCI group, n = 162) before COVID pandemic period. Primary endpoint was procedural success rate, defined as <20% residual stenosis with TIMI flow grade ≥2 by visual estimation of the angiograms. We also observed the incidence of periprocedural complication, and MACCE (cardiac death, non-fatal MI, TLR/TVR, and stroke) during 3-year clinical follow-up period. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors in an observational study, we used the propensity score matching (PSM).
Results
In comparison to conventional strategy, aggressive strategy group had no difference of male (76.2% vs 82.1%), but had a significantly difference of age (63.0 vs 60.9). For the primary endpoint, aggressive strategy group had a significantly difference in procedural success rate (79.5% vs. 92.5%)during 2015-2020, compared to conventional strategy. There was no difference in MACCE rate, 64 patients (12.6%) in conventional strategy group versus 21 (13.0%) in aggressive strategy group (p = 0.903) in Chi-square test. In PSM data, there was also no difference in MACCE rate (conventional strategy, 11.9% versus aggressive strategy, 11.0%).
Conclusions
Aggressive strategy with Japanese CTO experts, who adopted new devices and technology early, resulted in a higher success rate in CTO PCI. However, there were no differences in clinical outcomes during 3 year follow-up.
Figure 1. Success rate Table 1. Clinical outcomes