Coronary chronic total occlusions (CTOs) are defined as 100% occlusions with TIMI
(Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) 0 flow with at least a 3‐month duration.1
Treatment options for patients with coronary CTOs include lifestyle changes and medications
(as is appropriate for all patients with coronary artery disease) and coronary revascularization
with either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting
(CABG). In the previous version of the appropriateness use criteria for coronary revascularization,2
revascularization recommendations were different for patients with and without a coronary
CTO, but this is no longer the case in the current (2016 and 2017) versions.3, 4
The goal of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the clinical benefits,
likelihood of success, risk for complications, and crossing strategies for CTO PCI
and provide practical clinical recommendations.
Clinical Benefits
Randomized Trials
The potential benefits of CTO PCI have been and continue to be controversial given
the scarcity of randomized controlled trials (Table 1).5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Table 1
Overview of Randomized Controlled Trials and Large Observational Studies That Compared
CTO PCI With MT in Patients With Coronary CTOs
Study (Author) Name
No. of Patients Enrolled
No. of Centers
Study Period
Study Design
Compared Study Groups
Primary End Point
Overall Success Rate, %
Follow‐Up Period
MACE Rate, %
Randomized trials
EXPLORE (Henriques et al)5
304
14
2007–2015
Randomized, prospective
Early CTO PCI after STEMI vs MT after STEMI
LVEF and LVEDV
73
4 mo
5.4 vs 2.6
DECISION‐CTO (Park)6
834
19
2010–2016
Randomized, prospective
CTO PCI vs OMT (non‐CTO PCI performed in both study groups)
Death, MI, stroke, TVR
91.1
3 y
19.0 vs. 21.4
EURO‐CTO (Werner)7
407
26
2012–2015
Randomized, prospective
CTO PCI vs OMT (non‐CTO PCI not performed)
Health status
86.3
12 mo
6.7 vs 5.2
Observational studies
IRCTO (Tomasello et al)9
1777
12
2008–2009
Observational, prospective
PCI vs OMT vs CABG
MACCE, cardiac death
75.4
1 y
2.6 vs 8.2 vs 6.9
Jang et al10
738
1
2003–2012
Observational, retrospective
OMT+PCI/CABG vs OMT (all Rentrop 3 collateral filling grade.)
MACE, cardiac death
80.1
42 mo
3.4 vs 9.7
CABG indicates coronary artery bypass grafting; CTO, chronic total occlusion; DECISION‐CTO,
Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation Versus Optimal Medical Treatment in Patients with
Chronic Total Occlusion; EURO‐CTO, Randomized Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Utilization
of Revascularization or Optimal Medical Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Total
Coronary Occlusions; EXPLORE, Evaluating Xience and Left Ventricular Function in Percutaneous
Coronary Intervention on Occlusions After ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction; IRCTO,
Italian Registry of Chronic Total Occlusions; LVEDV, left ventricular end diastolic
volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MACCE, major adverse cardiac and
cerebrovascular event; MACE, major adverse cardiac event; MI, myocardial infarction;
MT, medical therapy; OMT, optimal medical treatment; OPEN‐CTO, Outcomes, Patient Health
Status, and Efficiency in Chronic Total Occlusion Hybrid Procedures; PCI, percutaneous
coronary intervention; STEMI, ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction; and TVR,
target vessel revascularization.
Only one randomized controlled trial comparing CTO PCI with medical therapy alone
has been published to date, the EXPLORE (Evaluating Xience and Left Ventricular Function
in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Occlusions After ST‐Elevation Myocardial
Infarction) trial.5 The EXPLORE trial randomized 304 patients who underwent primary
PCI for ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and had a coexisting non–infarct‐related
artery CTO to CTO PCI versus medical therapy alone. CTO PCI success was 73%. Cardiac
magnetic resonance imaging performed after 4 months showed similar left ventricular
ejection fraction and left ventricular end‐diastolic volume in the 2 study groups.5
Despite its limitations (enrollment of patients regardless of symptoms and regardless
of viability and ischemia of the myocardium supplied by the CTO; potential selection
bias given slow enrollment over 7 years at 14 sites; low CTO PCI success rate; and
use of a surrogate rather than a clinical primary end point), the EXPLORE trial findings
do not support routine PCI of nonculprit CTOs for improving the ejection fraction
of patients with recent ST‐segment‐–elevation acute MI.
Two other randomized controlled trials were presented in 2017, but neither has been
published as of November 2017. The DECISION‐CTO (Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation Versus
Optimal Medical Treatment in Patients with Chronic Total Occlusion; Clinical Trial
Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01078051) trial
was presented at the 2017 American College of Cardiology meeting.6 The EuroCTO (Randomized
Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Utilization of Revascularization or Optimal Medical
Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Total Coronary Occlusions; Clinical Trial Registration—URL:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01760083) was presented at the
2017 EuroPCR meeting.7 Both trials were stopped before completion of the planned enrollment
and were, hence, underpowered.
DECISION‐CTO trial planned to enroll 1284 patients but was stopped early because of
slow enrollment, after randomizing 834 patients with coronary CTOs to CTO PCI or optimal
medical therapy alone (OMT). CTO PCI was performed with a high success rate (91%).
Concurrent nonocclusive lesions were revascularized in many patients in both groups
(77% and 79% for the OMT and CTO PCI groups, respectively). Nearly 20% of the OMT
group crossed over to CTO PCI. At 3 years, the primary end point of death, MI, stroke,
or repeated revascularization occurred in 19% of the OMT versus 21.4% of the CTO PCI
group, suggesting noninferiority of OMT. Measures of quality of life (QoL; Seattle
Angina Questionnaire) were similar between study groups. DECISION‐CTO trial has important
design and execution limitations, hindering interpretation of its results and limiting
their applicability to daily clinical practice. These limitations include the following:
(1) high prevalence of non‐CTO lesions that were treated after enrollment in both
study groups without knowledge of the presence of ischemia or symptoms after non‐CTO
lesion revascularization; (2) high rates of crossover from OMT to CTO PCI; (3) mild
baseline symptoms; (4) suboptimal primary end point, because the main benefit of CTO
PCI is expected to be symptom improvement and not improvement in mortality or MI;
(5) inappropriate design (noninferiority, although CTO PCI would need to be superior
to replace the less invasive OMT); and (6) low power.
In contrast to DECISION‐CTO trial, QoL was the primary efficacy end point in EuroCTO
(Seattle Angina Questionnaire components at 12 months). Patients with non‐CTO lesions
could not be enrolled until after such lesions were successfully recanalized. The
initial plan was to enroll 1200 patients but because of slow enrollment, the study
ended after randomizing 407 patients 2:1 to CTO PCI and OMT or OMT alone. Procedural
success was 86.3%, and 7.3% of the OMT‐only group crossed over to CTO PCI. Likely
because of small sample size, the study showed statistically significant improvement
with CTO PCI in only 1 of the 5 components of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (ie,
angina frequency; P=0.009).
Although randomized controlled clinical trials are the gold standard for determining
the efficacy and safety of an intervention, only 15% of the American College of Cardiology/American
Heart Association guideline recommendations are based on level A evidence.11 Therefore,
in most cases, clinical decision making relies on less robust clinical evidence, such
as retrospective and observational studies.
Observational Studies: Revascularization Versus No Revascularization of CTOs
Several observational studies have compared the outcomes of CTO PCI with no revascularization;
the largest ones are summarized in Table 1.
Tomasello et al9 examined the long‐term outcomes of 1777 CTO patients from the Italian
CTO Registry, according to treatment strategy: PCI, 43.7%; medical therapy, 46.5%;
or surgery, 9.8%. At 1‐year follow‐up, the incidence of cardiac death (1.4% versus
4.7% versus 6.3%; P<0.001) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (2.6% versus 8.2%
and 6.9%; P<0.001) were significantly lower in the PCI group. After propensity matching
(n=619), medical therapy was associated with the higher MACE rate (7.6% versus 1.7%;
P<0.001), cardiac death (4.4% versus 1.5%; P=0.002), acute MI (2.9% versus 1.1%),
and rehospitalization (4.4% versus 2.3%; P=0.04), compared with CTO PCI.
Well‐developed collateral circulation to the CTO target vessel distal to the occlusion
has been used as an argument against CTO revascularization, despite studies demonstrating
ischemia in nearly all such cases.12, 13 Jang et al10 examined the long‐term outcomes
of different treatment strategies among 738 patients with at least one CTO lesion
and well‐developed collateral channels. During a median follow‐up of 42 months, patients
who underwent coronary revascularization (with PCI or CABG; n=502) had a lower incidence
of cardiac death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.58;
P<0.01) and MACE (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21–0.49; P<0.01), even after propensity matching
(cardiac death: HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09–0.80; P=0.02; and MACE: HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23–0.82;
P=0.01).10
In summary, large observational studies suggest benefit with CTO recanalization versus
medical therapy; however, they are subject to selection and ascertainment bias.
Observational Studies: Impact of CTO PCI on Depression, Exercise Capacity, and Ventricular
Arrhythmias
Several small observational studies have explored the potential effect of CTO PCI
on various surrogate end points, such as depression, exercise capacity, and the risk
for ventricular arrhythmias.
Bruckel et al reported a high prevalence of depression among patients with CTOs with
significant reduction after successful CTO PCI (40.0% versus 11.1%; P=0.01).14 Patients
who were depressed derived the most benefit from CTO PCI.14
Rossello et al demonstrated increased 6‐minute walking distance (417±126 m versus
463±103 m; P=0.002) and decreased angina frequency after successful CTO PCI, especially
in patients with a large baseline ischemic burden.15 Abdullah et al demonstrated increased
peak oxygen uptake during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (7.7±4.3 to 19.1±4.0 mL/kg
per minute; P=0.02) and decreased plasma B‐type natriuretic peptide levels (143±138
to 102±123 pg/mL; P=0.01) in 28 patients 5 months after successful CTO PCI.16 Mashayekhi
et al showed improved exercise capacity (peak oxygen consumption and anaerobic threshold
increased by 12% and 28%, respectively; P=0.001 for both), decrease in mean Canadian
Cardiology Society angina score (1.88±0.12 to 1.14±0.08; P<0.0001), and increase of
left ventricular ejection fraction (by 6.79%; 95% CI, 2.18%–11.40%; P=0.007) in 50
patients at 7 months after CTO PCI.17
Di Marco et al found that 56% of 84 patients with a prior MI who were referred for
ventricular tachycardia ablation had coexisting infarct‐related CTO. These patient
had larger scar tissue area (34 versus 19 cm2; P=0.001) and a higher incidence of
readmission because of recurrent ventricular tachycardia during a median follow‐up
of 19 months (47% versus 16%; P=0.003).18 The VACTO (Ventricular Arrhythmias and Chronic
Total Coronary Occlusion) study explored the impact of CTOs on the outcomes of 162
patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who received an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator
(ICD). At least one CTO was present in 44% of the patients and was independently associated
with appropriate ICD therapy (adjusted HR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5–8.3; P=0.003) and mortality
(adjusted HR, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.4–21; P=0.02) during a median follow‐up of 257 days.19
In another study of 425 patients who had a prior ventricular arrhythmia and underwent
ICD implantation, the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy was significantly higher
in patients with CTOs (51.7% versus 36.3%; P=0.0001).20 Raja et al21 compared long‐term
mortality and the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy
and ICD (n=307) divided into 3 groups: no CTOs (n=94), nonrevascularized CTOs (n=114),
and revascularized CTOs (n=99). During a median follow‐up of 4.1 years, the 3 groups
had similar mortality (P=0.274) and incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (P=0.306).21
Ischemia testing can facilitate the planning of CTO PCI. Secemsky et al compared the
concordance between target vessel selection and ischemic burden (assessed by stress
imaging) in patients with CTOs (N=532) who underwent CTO PCI (n=100 [18.8%]) or non‐CTO
PCI (n=432 [81.2%]).22 The concordance between target vessel and areas of ischemia
was significantly higher in patients who underwent CTO PCI versus those who underwent
non‐CTO PCI (90.7% versus 67.9%; P<0.0001).
Observational Studies: Successful Versus Failed Procedures
Several studies have compared successful with failed CTO PCI: a meta‐analysis of 25
studies compared successful (71%) with failed (29%) CTO PCIs in 28 486 patients. During
a mean follow‐up of 3.11 years, compared with failed procedures, successful CTO PCI
was associated with lower mortality (odds ratio, 0.52), less residual angina (odds
ratio, 0.38), lower risk for stroke (odds ratio, 0.72), and less need for subsequent
CABG (odds ratio, 0.18).23
The OPEN‐CTO Registry (Outcomes, Patient Health Status, and Efficiency in Chronic
Total Occlusion Hybrid Procedures) used the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Rose Dyspnea
Scale, and Patient Health Questionnaire in 1000 consecutive patients undergoing CTO
PCI using the hybrid approach at 12 experienced US centers. At 1‐month follow‐up,
the Seattle Angina Questionnaire QoL score improved (from 49.4±0.9 to 75.0±0.7; P<0.01),
with a simultaneous decrease in symptoms of dyspnea (Rose Dyspnea Scale score decreased
from 2.0±0.1 to 1.1±0.1; P<0.01) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire score
decreased from 6.2±0.2 to 3.5±0.1; P<0.01). The most prominent difference in SAQ (Seattle
Angina Questionnaire) scores was detected in the QoL domain, with a 10.8 (95% CI,
6.3–15.3) point greater improvement observed in patients with successful versus failed
procedures (P<0.001).8
Comparison of successful versus failed CTO PCIs has important shortcomings, because
it is not a randomized comparison and it is likely that patients in whom CTO PCI fails
have more complex angiographic characteristics and more comorbidities that can adversely
affect subsequent outcomes.
Success of CTO PCI
A meta‐analysis of 65 studies published between 2000 and 2011 reported 77% angiographic
success and 3.1% risk for MACE.24 In recent years, several large multicenter registries
have reported higher success (≈85%–90%) with acceptable complication rates in CTO
PCI at various experienced centers and with operators from all around the world, although
less optimal results have been reported from all‐comer PCI registries (Table 2).8,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
Table 2
Procedural Outcomes of Multicenter CTO and General PCI Registries in Recent Years
Authors
Study Period
No. of Centers
No. of Cases
Technical Success, %
Procedural Success, %
Overall MACE, %
Death, %
Acute MI, %
Stroke, %
TVR, %
Pericardial Tamponade, %
Dedicated CTO PCI registries
Christopoulos et al25
2012–2015
11
1036
91
90
1.7
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.5
Habara et al26
2012–2013
56
3229
···
88
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
Wilson et al27
2012–2014
7
1156
90
···
1.6
0
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.7
Maeremans et al28
2014–2015
17
1253
89
86
2.6
0.2
0.2
2.2
0.1
1.3
Sapontis et al8
2013–2017
12
1000
86
85
7.0
0.9
2.6
0.0
0.1
···a
CTO PCI analyses from all‐comer PCI registries
Brilakis et al30
2009–2013
···
22365
···
59
1.6
0.4
1.9
0.1
0.4
0.1
Hannan et al29
2009–2012
61
4030
···
61.3
1.1
···
···
···
···
···
Ramunddal et al32
2005–2012
···
6442
···
54.2
···
···
···
···
···
···
Tsai et al31
2007–2013
79
2394
79.8
79.7
4.3
0.0
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.0
CTO indicates chronic total occlusion; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; MI,
myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; and TVR, target vessel
revascularization.
a
The incidence of tamponade was not reported.
Success of CTO PCI at Experienced Centers
The PROGRESS‐CTO (Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion
Intervention) reported 91% technical success among 1036 consecutive CTO PCIs performed
at 11 US centers.25
The Japanese Retrograde Summit registry reported 88% success and a remarkably low
0.53% in‐hospital complication rate among 3229 CTO PCIs performed at 56 centers in
Japan. Higher‐volume centers had slightly higher success rates but similar complication
rates.26
The UK Hybrid CTO Registry reported a 90% final technical success rate and a 1.6%
30‐day MACE rate among 1156 patients. Compared with low‐complexity lesions (J‐CTO
score, 0–1), more complex lesions (J‐CTO score, ≥2) were more likely to require dissection
reentry techniques (56% versus 15%) and use of multiple approaches. The technical
success rate of the first attempted CTO PCI was 79%, but taking into account repeated
procedures, the final success rate increased to 90%.27
The RECHARGE (Registry of Crossboss and Hybrid Procedures in France, the Netherlands,
Belgium, and United Kingdom) reported 89% and 86% technical and procedural success
rates, respectively, with a 2.6% incidence of in‐hospital major complications among
1253 CTO PCIs performed at 17 European centers by 22 experienced high‐volume operators.28
The OPEN‐CTO Registry reported 86% technical success and 7% incidence of in‐hospital
MACEs in 1000 consecutive CTO PCIs.33 The major complication rates were higher than
in other studies, mainly related to higher rates of perforation and periprocedural
MI (0.9% mortality, 2.6% MI, 0% stroke, 0.7% emergency surgery, and 4.8% clinical
perforation).8
Success of CTO PCI in All‐Comer Registries
The outcomes of CTO PCI in all‐comer PCI registries have not been as good as those
achieved at experienced centers.
In an analysis from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry in the United States,
CTO PCI represented 3.8% of all PCIs for stable coronary artery disease (22 365 of
594 510) performed between 2009 and 2013. CTO PCI was associated with lower success
(59% versus 96%; P<0.001) and higher complication (1.6% versus 0.8%; P<0.001) rates,
compared with treatment of nonocclusive lesions. Higher CTO PCI volume was associated
with higher success (53% for operators performing <5 CTO PCIs/year versus 75% for
operators performing >10 CTO PCIs/year; P<0.001) and lower MACE (1.7% versus 1.4%,
respectively; P=0.05) rates.30
Hannan et al29 examined 4030 patients undergoing CTO PCI (of 156 043 PCIs) at 61 centers
participating in the New York State PCI Registry. CTO PCI was performed infrequently
(3.1%), with low technical success (61.3%) and acceptable complication rates (1.07%).
On multivariable analysis, incomplete revascularization (with ≥1 existing lesion)
in the setting of successful CTO PCI was not associated with higher mortality during
2.5 years of follow‐up (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.74–1.68; P=0.6090). Patients in whom CTO
intervention failed, however, had a higher mortality (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.28–2.08;
P<0.0001), regardless of whether other lesions were treated or not.29
In the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry), the prevalence
of CTO among patients with at least one 50% luminal coronary stenosis was 16.1% (14 441
of 89 872 patients). Approximately half of all patients who had a CTO (6442 of 14 441)
underwent CTO PCI, with a 54.2% success rate. Successful CTO PCI was associated with
lower long‐term mortality (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73–0.98; P<0.034) compared with failed
procedures.32
Tsai et al31 examined 111 273 patients who underwent coronary angiography at 79 Veterans
Affairs centers and were included in the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting
and Tracking program. At least one CTO was found in 26.4% of all patients (n=29 399),
of whom 8.1% underwent CTO PCI. CTO PCI procedural success rate was 79.7%, and MACE
rate was 4.3%. During 2 years of follow‐up, successful CTO PCI was associated with
lower mortality (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.95; P=0.02) and need for CABG (HR, 0.14;
95% CI, 0.08–0.24; P<0.01) compared with failed CTO PCI.31
CTO PCI Scores
Several scoring systems have been developed to determine the likelihood of CTO PCI
technical success and the potential difficulty of the procedure (measured as time
required to cross the occlusion), such as the CL Clinical and lesion‐related) score,34
Ellis score,35 Japan‐chronic total occlusion score (J‐CTO),36 Ostial, Rentrop grade,
Age score (ORA),37 PROGRESS‐CTO score,38 and RECHARGE score39 (Table 3). These scores
combine various clinical and angiographic characteristics and can provide a quantitative
assessment of the likelihood of success and the difficulty of the case, as long as
they are applied in similar settings as the ones that they were developed on. CTO
PCI scores may also be useful for scheduling procedures (eg, by avoiding performing
multiple high‐complexity lesions on the same day).41
Table 3
Scoring Systems for Predicting the Success and Efficiency of CTO PCI
Score Variables
J‐CTO Score36
CL Score34
PROGRESS‐CTO Score38
ORA Score37
RECHARGE Score39
Ellis Score35
No. of cases
494
1657
781
1073
1253
456
End point
Guidewire crossing <30 min
Technical success
Technical success
Technical success
Technical success
Technical success
Age, y
−
−
−
+ (≥75)
+ (>65)
−
Prior CABG
−
+
−
−
+
−
Prior failure
+
−
−
−
−
−
Proximal cap
+ (Blunt)
+ (Blunt)
+ (Ambiguous)
+ (Ostial)
+
+ (Ambiguous, ostial)
Tortuosity
+ (>45° in lesion)
−
+ (Moderatea proximal)
−
+
+
Calcification
+
+ (Severe)
−
−
+
+
Lesion length
+ (≥20 mm)
+ (≥20 mm)
−
−
+
+
Target vessel
−
+ (Non‐LAD)
+ (LCX)
−
−
+ (Poor distal target)
Collateral quality
−
−
+ (Interventional)
+ (Rentrop <2)
−
+b
Other
−
Prior myocardial infarction
−
−
BMI >30 kg/m2, nonproximal location
Operator experience
+ Indicates present; −, absent; BMI, body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass
grafting; CL, ; CTO, chronic total occlusion; J‐CTO, Japan Chronic Total Occlusion
score; LAD, left anterior descending artery; LCX, circumflex artery; ORA, ostial location,
Rentrop grade <2, age ≥75 years; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PROGRESS‐CTO,
Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention;
and RECHARGE, Registry of Crossboss and Hybrid Procedures in France, the Netherlands,
Belgium and United Kingdom.
a
Moderate tortuosity was defined as 2 bends >70° or 1 bend >90° proximal to the lesion.
b
Applying specific collateral classification scoring (range, 0–2) combining Werner
collateral classification,40 tortuosity, and collateral type (septal, epicardial,
or other).
Bridging the Gap
In summary, the CTO PCI success rates in all‐comer registries (54%–80%) are significantly
lower than those achieved at experienced centers (85%–90%). Bridging the gap will
likely require development of novel equipment and techniques as well as development
of comprehensive, high‐volume,42 CTO PCI programs43 and continued education through
live case demonstrations,44 CTO PCI workshops, and proctorships.45 CTO PCI is one
of the key components of the growing complex, high‐risk, PCI programs.46, 47
Complications of CTO PCI
Because of higher lesion and technical complexity, CTO PCI carries a higher risk than
non‐CTO PCI. In the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, CTO PCI had a 2‐fold higher
periprocedural complication rate than non‐CTO PCI (1.6% versus 0.8%; P<0.0001).30
Among experienced centers and operators, the contemporary risk of CTO PCI is ≈3% (Tables 1
and 2). A scoring system was recently developed for determining the risk of CTO PCI,
the PROGRESS‐CTO complication score, which uses 3 variables: age >65 years, lesion
length ≥23 mm, and use of the retrograde approach.48
The estimated procedural risk should be taken into account when decisions are made
about proceeding with CTO PCI. Moreover, operators and catheterization laboratories
performing CTO PCI should be vigilant and prepared to treat any complications that
may arise.
Perforation
Perforation is one of the most feared complications of CTO PCI. Coronary perforations
are infrequent (0.33% of all cases) but are associated with poor short‐ and long‐term
outcomes. Kinnaird et al analyzed 527 121 interventions of the British Cardiovascular
Intervention Society Database, showing that female sex, older age, rotational atherectomy,
and CTO PCI were independent predictors of perforation.49 The incidence of coronary
perforations among 26 807 CTO interventions from the same registry was 1.40%. Patients
with coronary perforations had a higher incidence of in‐hospital and 12‐month death,
MI, and bleeding requiring transfusion.50 In another multicenter registry, the incidence
of perforation among 2097 CTO PCIs was 4.1%, but only 0.6% required pericardiocentesis.51
Coronary perforation in patients who underwent prior CABG had been considered less
perilous previously, because pericardial adhesions form after sternotomy, potentially
preventing tamponade. Recent reports, however, suggest that perforation in patients
who underwent prior CABG may result in loculated hematomas, potentially causing localized
tamponade and cardiogenic shock. In such cases, computed tomography–guided drainage
or surgical intervention may be required to drain the effusion.52, 53, 54 Intramural
bleeding should be suspected if the clinical picture is suggestive of pericardial
tamponade, but no pericardial effusion can be detected by echocardiography.55
Radiation
CTO PCI often requires long procedure and fluoroscopy time and may expose both the
patient and the operator to high radiation doses that can cause skin injury and increase
the subsequent risk for malignancy. Acute dermatitis can develop at the exposed skin
area and may progress to chronic skin ulcer if left undiscovered or untreated, occasionally
requiring surgical intervention and skin transplantation.56 Wei et al examined 2124
patients who underwent 2579 PCIs (238 of which were CTO PCIs) and found that a chronic
skin ulcer developed in 0.34% (n=9 patients, in 5 of whom the ulcer developed after
CTO PCI) and required surgical treatment in 8 patients.57 The threshold for stopping
the procedure because of high radiation exposure is 7 to 10 Gy air kerma dose, and
postprocedural monitoring and referral for dermatologist follow‐up are recommended
for air kerma doses >5 Gy.
In part because of an increase in popularity of CTO PCI and increasing emphasis on
procedural safety, there have been significant reductions in patient radiation dose
over time, by using low fluoroscopy rates (6–7.5 frames per second), newer x‐ray systems
that administer a lower radiation dose,58 and better radiation safety techniques.59
Werner et al60 examined 984 CTO PCIs performed in 863 patients between 2010 and 2015.
During that period, fluoroscopy settings were changed (15 to 7.5 and then to 6 pulses/second),
with a cine frame rate of 15 to 7.5/second. Despite an increase in lesion complexity
and similar fluoroscopy times, dose area product significantly decreased during the
study period (initially by 20%, followed by an additional 7% reduction).60 Additional
shielding (eg, using disposable sterile radiation shields) could further reduce operator
radiation dose.61
CTO PCI Techniques
The most challenging portion of most CTO PCIs is crossing the occlusion with a guidewire.
There are 3 main crossing techniques: antegrade wire escalation (AWE), antegrade dissection/reentry,
and the retrograde approach.
Antegrade Wire Escalation
AWE (ie, sequential use of various guidewires in the antegrade direction, from the
proximal to the distal part of the vessel) is the most commonly used initial and final
CTO crossing technique (66%–78%),25, 26, 27, 28 especially for less complex occlusions.62
Antegrade Dissection and Reentry
Antegrade dissection and reentry (ADR) refers to use of the subintimal (or subadventitial)
space for crossing the occlusion, followed by reentry into the distal true lumen using
guidewires or dedicated systems, such as the Stingray balloon and guidewire (Boston
Scientific, Natick, MA).63, 64, 65, 66, 67 The early version of these techniques created
extensive areas of dissection and was associated with suboptimal short‐ and long‐term
outcomes68; hence, limited dissection techniques (minimizing the length of dissection
and consequent side branch loss) are preferred.64
Danek et al69 reported use of ADR in 459 of 1313 CTO PCIs (34.9%) performed at 11
US centers between 2012 and 2105. ADR was more commonly performed using dedicated
devices (CrossBoss, 53.7%; Stingray, 54.8%) and was associated with comparable technical
success rate as AWE (92.7% versus 94.2%; P=0.43) and similar complication rates (2.1%
versus 0.6%; P=0.12).69
As part of RECHARGE, Maeremans et al70 analyzed the outcomes and safety of the antegrade
dissection reentry in 292 patients. ADR techniques overall were used for complex lesions
(J‐CTO score, 2.7±1.1), with 78% per‐lesion success rate and 3.1% complication rate.70
Azzalini et al compared the long‐term outcomes of CTO PCIs using device‐based antegrade
dissection reentry strategies (CrossBoss/Stingray [Boston Scientific]) with wire‐based
dissection reentry techniques (subintimal tracking and reentry and limited antegrade
subintimal tracking) in a multicenter registry of 223 cases.71 When comparing device‐based
reentry with subintimal tracking and reenty (STAR) and limited antegrade subintimal
tracking, the device‐based reentry strategies (ie, CrossBoss/Stingray) had significantly
lower incidence of MACE (4.3% versus 15.4% and 17.5%; P=0.02) and target vessel revascularization
(3.1% versus 7.7% and 15.5%; P=0.02).
Hasegawa et al72 compared the midterm outcomes of intimal with subintimal tracking
by using both antegrade and retrograde crossing. Subintimal tracking occurred less
frequently in the antegrade group (11.6% versus 30.9%; P<0.01), requiring target vessel
revascularization more frequently in the retrograde group (7.1% versus 16.0%; P=0.03)
but not in the antegrade group (2.8% versus 3.6%; P=0.99).72
Song et al73 compared intraplaque with subintimal wire crossing using intravascular
ultrasonographic assessment for acute vessel damage and complications. Subintimal
tracking was more common with dissection reentry strategies than with wire escalation
(86.7% versus 27.9%) in more complex lesions (J‐CTO score: 2.5±1.1 versus 1.6±1.1;
P<0.001). Subintimal crossing was associated with a higher composite of in‐hospital
all‐cause death, periprocedural MI, and target lesion revascularization (7.9% versus
1.9%; P=0.04), driven by periprocedural MI (7.0% versus 1.9%; P=0.1). Subintimal tracking
was associated with a higher rate of intravascular ultrasound–detected vascular injury
(89.5% versus 52.4%; P<0.001), angiographic dye staining/extravasation (14.0% versus
3.8%; P=0.01), and branch occlusion (48.2% versus 16.2%; P<0.001).73
In summary, limited ADR techniques are a key component of contemporary CTO PCI, especially
for crossing complex CTOs, and are associated with favorable short‐ and long‐term
outcomes.
Retrograde Approach
The retrograde approach involves advancement of a guidewire through a collateral vessel
or bypass grafts into the distal true lumen, followed by CTO crossing against the
former direction of blood flow. Similar to ADR, the retrograde approach is an essential
tool for achieving high CTO PCI success rates,74, 75, 76 especially in more complex
cases and when antegrade crossing strategies are not feasible or fail to achieve crossing.25,
27 However, the retrograde approach carries higher risk for procedure‐related complications.
Results of the largest retrograde CTO PCI registries (>300 cases) published to date
are summarized in Table 4.74, 75, 76, 77, 78 Careful selection of collateral channels
is essential for optimizing the success and safety of the retrograde approach. Various
pathways (septal and epicardial collaterals, saphenous vein grafts, and arterial grafts)
can be used for retrograde crossing.
Table 4
Largest Published Registries of Retrograde CTO PCI
Authors
No. of Retrograde Cases
Study Period
Initial Retrograde Approach, %
Initial Retrograde Technical Success, %
Use of Reverse CART, %
Overall Technical Success, %
Overall MACE Rate, %
Yamane et al74
378
2009
75
70.4
42.5
83.6
0.5
Tsuchikane et al75
801
2009–2010
67
71.2
55.2
84.8
1.6
Karmpaliotis et al76
462
2006–2011
46
83.4
47.2
81.4
2.6
Galassi et al77
1582
2008–2012
76
83.2
16.0
75.3
0.8
Karmpaliotis et al78
539
2012–2015
46
82.1
62.2
84.8
4.3
CART indicates controlled antegrade and retrograde subintimal tracking; CTO, chronic
total occlusion; MACE, major adverse cardiac event; and PCI, percutaneous coronary
intervention.
The European CTO Club reported 75.3% technical and 71.2% clinical success among 1582
retrograde CTO PCIs, with significant improvement over time (73.5%, 65.8%, 73.0%,
74.7%, and 79.2%, between 2008 and 2012). The overall procedural complication rate
was 6.8%, whereas the in‐hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event
(defined as any cardiac death, stroke, and repeated revascularization during the hospital
stay) rate was 0.8%. During a mean follow‐up of 24.7 months, all‐cause mortality rate
was 3.9%, cardiac mortality rate was 1.9%, and overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular
event rate was 13.6%.77
Karmpaliotis et al78 analyzed 539 retrograde interventions among 1301 CTO PCIs performed
at 11 US centers between 2012 and 2015. Retrograde CTO PCI, as compared with antegrade‐only
cases, was associated with higher clinical (prior CABG, 48% versus 24% [P<0.001];
prior PCI, 70.4% versus 60.8% [P<0.001]; prior CTO PCI failure, 20.7% versus 15.4%
[P=0.017]) and lesion (J‐CTO score, 3.1±1.0 versus 2.1±1.2; P<0.001) complexity, lower
technical success (85% versus 94%; P<0.001), and higher in‐hospital MACE rate (4.3%
versus 1.1%; P<0.001).78
Okamura et al79 analyzed the retrograde procedure‐related complications of the Retrograde
Summit Registry in Japan. Retrograde success was 71.9%, and the complication rate
was 11.3%. The most common complication that occurred during retrograde cases was
collateral channel injury (9.5%), yet additional treatment was required in only 2.1%
of all cases. Use of septal collaterals was associated with longer procedure (197.0±84.6
versus 184.6±81.4 minutes; P=0.063) and fluoroscopy (97.2±51.9 versus 87.1±41.4 minutes;
P=0.007) times but had a lower rate of non–Q‐wave MI (0.1% versus 1.1%; P=0.021) and
channel injuries (1.1% versus 3.8%; P=0.005) compared with use of epicardial collaterals.79
Saphenous vein grafts80 and septal collaterals are the preferred pathways for retrograde
crossing, because they are easier to cross and carry lower risk for complications.74,
76, 79 Dautov et al assessed the safety and effectivity of the septal surfing technique
in 240 retrograde PCIs, showing successful septal crossing in 81% of the cases.81
Mashayekhi et al82 compared the outcomes of retrograde CTO PCI via ipsilateral (n=44
[28%]) with contralateral (n=114 [72%]) collateral connections. The overall retrograde
success was similar in the ipsilateral and contralateral group (80% versus 82%; P>0.05),
with low crossover rates (ipsilateral to contralateral, 11%; contralateral to ipsilateral,
4%) and a similar major complications rate (5% versus 7%; P=1.00).82 However, epicardial
collateral perforation can rapidly cause tamponade and may require urgent sealing
from both directions,83 usually with coils, fat, or thrombin.84 Use of epicardial
collaterals is usually reserved for highly experienced operators and centers (Figure 1).85
Figure 1
The 4 stages of learning chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention
(PCI). Reprinted from Azzalini and Brilakis85 with permission. Copyright 2017, John
Wiley and Sons.
In summary, retrograde is an important CTO PCI technique but should be used with caution,
because it carries increased risk for complications, especially through epicardial
collaterals and in patients who underwent prior CABG.
Selection of Crossing Technique
Determining the optimal initial and subsequent crossing strategy depends on the angiographic
characteristics of the lesion and should be selected after detailed review of the
angiogram. The hybrid approach (Figure 2) starts with dual angiography and focuses
on assessment of 4 anatomic features (proximal cap ambiguity, distal target vessel,
interventional collateral, and lesion length), recommending early change if the initially
selected strategy is not successful.33
Figure 2
The hybrid algorithm for crossing coronary chronic total occlusions (CTOs). CART,
controlled antegrade and retrograde tracking and dissection. Reprinted from Brilakis1
with permission. Copyright 2017, Elsevier.
Another algorithm is the Asia Pacific algorithm (http://apcto.club/apcto-algorithm),
which is also based on the CTO anatomic characteristics and gives preference to parallel
wiring and intravascular ultrasound–guided wiring86 over antegrade dissection and
reentry, reflecting the local expertise in the countries where it was developed.40,
87
Remaining Controversies
Randomized Controlled Trials
As described earlier, only 3 randomized controlled clinical trials comparing CTO PCI
with medical therapy have been performed to date, the EXPLORE, DECISION‐CTO, and EuroCTO
trials. Of the 3 trials, 2 (the DECISION‐CTO and EuroCTO trials) were stopped prematurely
before completion of planned enrollment and were, thus, underpowered. Moreover, DECISION‐CTO
trial randomized several patients with multivessel coronary artery disease before
revascularization of the non‐CTO lesions, limiting assessment of the impact of CTO
PCI. Given the potential placebo effect of CTO PCI on QoL, there is a need for a well‐designed
and adequately powered sham‐controlled, randomized clinical trial to definitively
answer the question of the impact of CTO PCI on patient symptoms.
Use of Dissection/Reentry Strategies
There is ongoing controversy on the use and timing of dissection/reentry (both antegrade
and retrograde) techniques in contemporary CTO PCI. As described in the Antegrade
Dissection and Reentry section, extensive dissection/reentry has been associated with
a high risk for periprocedural complications (eg, periprocedural MI) and high rates
of restenosis, likely because of side branch loss, and is only used as a bailout.
The CrossBoss First trial compared upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter with AWE
for CTO crossing.88 It demonstrated similar crossing time, success and complication
rates, and costs, suggesting that both strategies are acceptable as an initial approach.
Crossing time was shorter with upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter in in‐stent restenotic
lesions. Antegrade dissection/reentry was the final successful strategy in 22% of
the AWE group, demonstrating the importance of these techniques at various stages
of contemporary CTO PCI. Additional studies comparing various crossing strategies
are important for further optimizing the initial and subsequent strategy selection
for CTO PCI.
Radial Versus Femoral Approach in CTO PCI
Access site selection is important in CTO PCI for providing appropriate support and
allowing enough space for multiple devices during various techniques. Eight French
guiding catheters, via transfemoral access, are often recommended, because they provide
strong support, but may carry a higher risk for vascular complications.89 Access with
ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance could reduce the risk for arterial access complications.90
Murakami et al showed that transradial CTO PCI can be effective in appropriately selected
cases91; however, bifemoral access was used for more complex cases. Tanaka et al92
compared transradial (n=280) with transfemoral (n=305) CTO PCI, reporting similar
technical success in the 2 groups (74.6% versus 72.5%; P=0.51). However, complex (J‐CTO
score, ≥3) cases performed using transradial access had significantly lower technical
success rates than those done via transfemoral access (35.7% versus 58.2%; P=0.004).92
Alaswad et al demonstrated that CTO PCI using at least one transradial access was
feasible, with high success rates, but at the cost of longer fluoroscopy and mean
procedure time.93 The 8F sheathless guide catheters94 or 7F slender sheaths (Terumo,
Somerset, NJ) are increasingly being used for radial CTO PCI and may facilitate wider
adoption of the radial approach for CTO (and other complex) PCIs.
Conclusions
All decisions in medicine should be based on the risk/benefit ratio (Figure 3). The
main and best documented to date benefit of CTO PCI is symptom improvement (ie, improvement
in angina or angina equivalents). Consequently, for truly asymptomatic patients, there
should be a high threshold for doing CTO PCI for other indications, such as ischemia
reduction or improvement in ejection fraction. Deriving benefit requires successful
recanalization; hence, estimating the likelihood of success (85%–90% at experienced
centers) is critical for accurate estimation of the potential benefit. The risk of
major procedural complications is ≈3% and depends on patient age, lesion complexity,
and crossing techniques used. Use of scoring systems can be useful for providing the
patient and operator with an objective assessment of the likelihood of success and
procedural risk, provided that the scores are used by operators and patients similar
to those from whom the scores were derived. Successful CTO PCI in appropriately selected
patients can provide significant clinical benefits and improve their QoL.
Figure 3
Algorithm for potential risk/benefit assessment in chronic total occlusion percutaneous
coronary intervention. DAPT indicates dual antiplatelet therapy; PCI, percutaneous
coronary intervention; PROGRESS‐CTO, Prospective Global Registry for the Study of
Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention. Reprinted from Brilakis1 with permission. Copyright
2017, Elsevier.
Disclosures
Brilakis reports consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, ACIST, Amgen,
Asahi, CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, Medicure, and Nitiloop; he has received research
support from Boston Scientific and Osprey; he is on the Board of Directors for Cardiovascular
Innovations Foundation and the Board of Trustees for the Society of Cardiovascular
Angiography and Interventions. Tajti has no disclosures to report.