Short- and long-term outcomes of antegrade versus retrograde approaches in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Chronic Total Occlusion (CTO) involves severe coronary artery blockage that impairs blood flow and affects 15-20 % of patients undergoing coronary angiography and over 40 % with diabetes or heart failure. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is used to restore blood flow in such cases. The retrograde approach, developed due to lower success with the antegrade method in complex cases, improves outcomes but increases complications. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of both approaches to guide clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus until June 5, 2024, to find studies comparing antegrade and retrograde approaches in CTO-PCI patients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using R software (version 4.4.1), with significance set at p < 0.05. Random-effects models were used for all analyses.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 22 observational studies with 49,152 CTO-PCI patients: 35,844 in the antegrade arm and 13,308 in the retrograde arm. The antegrade approach showed significantly lower risks of in-hospital outcomes, including mortality [RR: 0.45; p < 0.001], myocardial infarction [RR: 0.37; p < 0.001], major adverse cardiovascular events [RR: 0.34; p < 0.001], and cerebrovascular events [RR: 0.50; p = 0.011]. Long-term outcomes, such as all-cause mortality [RR: 0.71; p = 0.157] and myocardial infarction [RR: 0.76; p = 0.438], were comparable between both approaches.

CONCLUSION

The antegrade technique shows better outcomes and procedural advantages over retrograde revascularization, though long-term outcomes are similar. Further studies, especially randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.