Affiliation:
1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology University of Washington Seattle Washington USA
2. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology University of Missouri Columbia Missouri USA
3. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute Kansas City Missouri USA
4. Monash Heart Monash University Melbourne Australia
5. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology Emory University Atlanta Georgia USA
6. Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown Medical Center Morristown New Jersey USA
7. New York Presbyterian Hospital Columbia University New York New York USA
8. St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center Roslyn New York USA
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundRisk stratification before chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important to inform procedural planning as well as patients and their families. We sought to externally validate the PROGRESS‐CTO complication risk scores in the OPEN‐CTO registry.MethodsOPEN‐CTO is a prospective registry of 1000 consecutive CTO PCIs performed at 12 experienced US centers using the hybrid algorithm. Endpoints of interest were in‐hospital all‐cause mortality, need for pericardiocentesis, acute myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (a composite of all‐cause mortality, stroke, periprocedural MI, urgent repeat revascularization, and tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis). Model discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) method, and calibration with the observed‐versus‐predicted probability method.ResultsMean age was 65.4 ± 10.3 year, and 36.5% of patients had prior coronary artery bypass graft. Overall, 41 patients (4.1%) suffered MACE, 9 (0.9%) mortality, 26 (2.6%) acute MI, and 11 (1.1%) required pericardiocentesis. Technical success was achieved in 86.3%. Patients who experienced MACE had higher anatomic complexity, and more often required antegrade dissection/reentry and the retrograde approach. Increasing PROGRESS‐CTO MACE scores were associated with increasing MACE rates: 0.5% (score 0−1), 2.4% (score 2), 3.7% (score 3), 4.5% (score 4), 7.8% (score 5), 13.0% (score 6−7). The AUC were as follows: MACE 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66−0.78), mortality 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66−0.95), pericardiocentesis 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60−0.82), and acute MI 0.57 (95% CI: 0.49−0.66). Calibration was adequate for MACE and mortality, while the models underestimated the risk of pericardiocentesis and acute MI.ConclusionsIn a large external cohort of patients treated with the hybrid algorithm by experienced CTO operators, the PROGRESS‐CTO MACE, mortality, and pericardiocentesis risk scores showed good discrimination, while the acute MI score had inferior performance.
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Medicine
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献