Guide catheter extension use are associated with higher procedural success in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary interventions

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundGuide catheter extensions (GCEs) increase support and facilitate equipment delivery, but aggressive instrumentation may be associated with a higher risk of complications.AimOur aim was to assess the impact of GCEs on procedural success and complications in patients submitted to chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsWe analyzed data from the multicenter LATAM CTO Registry. Procedural success was defined as <30% residual stenosis and TIMI 3 distal flow. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was defined as the composite of all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare outcomes with and without GCE use.ResultsFrom August 2010 to August 2021, 3049 patients were included. GCEs were used in 438 patients (14.5%). In unadjusted analysis, patients in the GCE group were older and had more comorbidities. The median J‐CTO score and its components were higher in the GCE group. After PSM, procedural success was higher with GCE use (87.7% vs. 80.5%, p = 0.007). The incidence of coronary perforation (odds ratio [OR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78–2.71, p = 0.230), bleeding (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 0.41–2.41, p = 0.986), in‐hospital death (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.54–3.62, p = 0.495) and MACCE (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.52–2.19, p = 0.850) were similar in both groups.ConclusionIn a contemporary, multicenter cohort of patients undergoing CTO PCI, GCEs were used in older patients, with more comorbidities and complex anatomy. After PSM, GCE use was associated with higher procedural success, and similar incidence of adverse outcomes.