Reclassification of CTO Crossing Strategies in the ERCTO Registry According to the CTO-ARC Consensus Recommendations.

BACKGROUND

The CTO-ARC (Chronic Total Occlusion Academic Research Consortium) recognized that a nonstandardized definition of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention approaches can bias the complications' attribution to each crossing strategy.

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to describe the numbers, efficacy, and safety of each final CTO crossing strategy according to CTO-ARC recommendations.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, data were retrieved from the European Registry of Chronic Total Occlusions between 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

Out of 8,673 patients, antegrade and retrograde approach were performed in 79.2% and 20.8% of cases, respectively. The antegrade approach included antegrade wiring and antegrade dissection and re-entry, both performed with or without retrograde contribution (antegrade wiring without retrograde contribution: n = 5,929 [68.4%]; antegrade wiring with retrograde contribution: n = 446 [5.1%]; antegrade dissection and re-entry without retrograde contribution: n = 353 [4.1%]; antegrade dissection and re-entry with retrograde contribution: n = 137 [1.6%]). The retrograde approach included retrograde wiring (n = 735 [8.4%]) and retrograde dissection and re-entry (n = 1,073 [12.4%]). Alternative antegrade crossing was associated with lower technical success (70% vs 86% vs 93.1%, respectively; P < 0.001) and higher complication rates (4.6% vs 2.9% vs 1%, respectively; P < 0.001) as compared with retrograde and true antegrade crossing. However, alternative antegrade crossing was applied mostly as a rescue strategy (96.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The application of CTO-ARC definitions allowed the reclassification of 6.7% of procedures as alternative antegrade crossing with retrograde or antegrade contribution which showed higher MACCE and lower technical success rates, as compared with true antegrade and retrograde crossing.