The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Division of Interventional Cardiology, Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Jan 1;97(1):E40-E50. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28941. Epub 2020 Apr 22.
We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antegrade fenestration and reentry (AFR) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) recanalization in a multicenter registry.
Adoption of antegrade dissection/reentry (ADR) for CTO recanalization has been limited, and novel ADR techniques are needed.
AFR involves the balloon-induced creation of multiple fenestrations between the false and true lumen. A targeted true lumen reentry is subsequently achieved with a low tip-load polymer-jacketed guidewire. Following the initial description and dissemination of AFR, patients undergoing AFR-based CTO recanalization at nine centers were included in the present registry. Study endpoints were AFR success, procedural success, and target-lesion failure (TLF) on follow-up.
We included 41 patients. Mean J-CTO score was 2.5 ± 1.4. In 80.5% of cases, AFR was performed after failed antegrade wire escalation. Another ADR technique was used before AFR in one-third of cases. AFR achieved distal true lumen reentry in n = 27/41 (65.9%) cases. In n = 14/41 (34.1%) cases with AFR failure, use of alternative techniques led to successful CTO recanalization in eight additional patients. The overall technical and procedural success rates were 85.4% and 82.9%, respectively. No AFR-related complications were observed. One-year TLF rate was 8.3% overall, with no differences between successful and failed AFR.
We report on AFR feasibility in a multicenter registry of patients undergoing CTO recanalization. We observed a moderate success rate, coupled with the absence of complications. Moreover, even a failed AFR attempt did not preclude the use of alternative techniques to achieve recanalization. Further studies should confirm and extend our findings.
我们旨在评估多中心注册研究中顺行开窗和再进入(AFR)治疗慢性完全闭塞(CTO)再通的疗效和安全性。
采用顺行夹层/再进入(ADR)治疗 CTO 再通的方法受到限制,需要新的 ADR 技术。
AFR 涉及在假腔和真腔之间用球囊诱导产生多个窗孔。随后,用低尖端负荷聚合物护套导丝实现靶向真腔再进入。在 AFR 的初步描述和传播之后,在九个中心进行基于 AFR 的 CTO 再通的患者被纳入本注册研究。研究终点为 AFR 成功、程序成功和随访期间的靶病变失败(TLF)。
我们纳入了 41 名患者。平均 J-CTO 评分 2.5±1.4。80.5%的病例在顺行导丝升级失败后进行 AFR。三分之一的病例在进行 AFR 前使用了另一种 ADR 技术。在 n = 27/41(65.9%)病例中,AFR 实现了远端真腔再进入。在 n = 14/41(34.1%)的 AFR 失败病例中,使用替代技术使另外 8 例患者成功再通 CTO。总的技术和程序成功率分别为 85.4%和 82.9%。未观察到与 AFR 相关的并发症。总的 1 年 TLF 率为 8.3%,成功和失败的 AFR 之间没有差异。
我们报告了多中心注册研究中接受 CTO 再通的患者中 AFR 的可行性。我们观察到中等成功率,且无并发症。此外,即使 AFR 尝试失败,也不排除使用替代技术来实现再通。进一步的研究应该证实并扩展我们的发现。