Megaly M, Buda K, Basir M, Mashayekhi K, Rinfret S, McEntegart M, Azzalini L, Alaswad K, and Brilakis E. TCT-121 Extraplaque Versus Intraplaque Tracking in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022; 80(12):B50-B51.
J Am Coll Cardiol
Background: The impact of modern extraplaque (EP) tracking techniques on long-term outcomes remains controversial.
Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared EP vs intraplaque (IP) tracking in CTO PCI. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Der-Simonian and Laird random-effects method.
Results: Our meta-analysis included seven observational studies with 2,982 patients. Patients who underwent EP tracking had significantly more complex CTOs with higher J-CTO scores (2.9 ± 1.2 vs 1.6 ± 1.1, P < 0.001), longer lesion length, more severe calcification, and significantly longer stented segments. During a median follow-up of 12 months (range 9-12 months), EP tracking was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.06, P = 0.01) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.15-2.48, P = 0.01) compared with IP tracking. There was no difference in the incidence of all-cause death (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.67-2.78, P = 0.39), myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.82-2.69, P = 0.20), or stent thrombosis (OR 2.09, 95% CI 0.69-6.33, P = 0.19) between EP and IP tracking.
Conclusion: Compared with IP tracking, EP tracking was utilized in more complex and longer CTOs, required more stents, and was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 12 months, driven by a higher risk of TVR, but without an increased risk of death or MI.
Categories: CORONARY: Complex and Higher Risk Procedures for Indicated Patients (CHIP)