Guan C, Yang W, Song L, Chen J, Qian J, Wu F, Zou T, Shi Y, Sun Z, Xie L, Gao L, Cui J, Zhao J, Kirtane AJ, Yeh RW, Wu Y, Yang Y, Qiao S, Brilakis ES, and Xu B
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the association of procedural outcomes with long-term mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) after chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: The association between acute procedural results and subsequent outcomes has received limited study., Methods: Between January 2010 and December 2013, a total of 2,659 CTO PCI patients were consecutively enrolled. Procedural results were categorized into 3 groups: 1) optimal recanalization, with reperfusion of the occluded vessel and side branches (if any) with TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) flow grade 3; 2) suboptimal recanalization, meeting any of the following criteria: persistence of significant side branch occlusion, final TIMI flow grade 1 or 2, or residual percentage diameter stenosis >30%; and 3) procedural failure (i.e., failure to cross a lesion with a balloon angioplasty catheter). The primary outcome was the 5-year composite endpoint of cardiac death and MI., Results: Overall, optimal recanalization was achieved in 1,562 patients (58.7%), suboptimal recanalization was achieved in 399 patients (15.0%), and recanalization failed in 698 patients (26.3%). The 5-year incidence of the primary outcome was significantly higher in the suboptimal recanalization group compared with the optimal recanalization and the failure groups (10.1% vs. 6.5% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.046), which was driven mainly by higher risk for MI. In subgroup analysis, significant side branch occlusion was associated with numerically higher risk for 5-year MI (hazard ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.99 to 2.43; p = 0.054)., Conclusions: In this large cohort of CTO PCI patients, suboptimal recanalization was associated with significantly higher long-term incidence of cardiac death and MI compared with optimal recanalization or procedural failure., Competing Interests: Funding support and Author Disclosures This study was supported by research funding from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Project (2018-12M-AI-007) and the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission Project (Z181100001718113). Dr. Brilakis has received consulting and speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, the American Heart Association (associate editor, Circulation), Biotronik, Boston Scientific, the Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, InfraRedx, Medtronic, Siemens, and Teleflex; has received research support from Regeneron and Siemens; and is a shareholder in MHI Ventures. Dr. Yeh has received research grants and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Kirtane has received institutional funding to Columbia University and/or the Cardiovascular Research Foundation (research grants and fees paid for speaking engagements and/or consulting) from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, and ReCor Medical; and has received reimbursement for travel expenses and meals from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)