Multicenter experience with percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion in Korean population: analysis of the Korean nationwide multicenter chronic total occlusion registry

Abstract

Objectives Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) remains challenging because of limited success and higher target vessel failure rates. Detailed safety and efficacy data for CTO-PCI from a multicenter real-world Korean registry are limited. Methods Since May 2007, the Korean multicenter retrospective CTO registry has enrolled 3271 patients who underwent CTO-PCI at 26 major medical centers. Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics and 12-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates after PCI were retrospectively collected. Results Baseline cardiovascular risk factors included: male sex, 73.8%; prior myocardial infarction (MI), 14.8%; prior PCI, 26.6%; hypertension, 62.3%; diabetes mellitus, 34.8%; dyslipidemia, 33.3%; and current smoker, 30.9%. Pre-PCI myocardial viability testing was performed in 23.6% of patients and pre-PCI cardiac computed tomography (CT) in 17.6%. CTO arterial lesions were distributed as follows: right coronary, 41.0%; left anterior descending, 40.0%; left circumflex, 22.5%; and left main, 0.4%. Unfavorable lesion morphology was detected by angiography in 38.1%. Intravascular ultrasound guidance and the retrograde approach were utilized in 23.6 and 3.1% of CTO-PCI procedures, respectively. More than 75% of patients received drug-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting, 26.5%; paclitaxel-eluting, 23.8%; zotarolimus-eluting, 23.4%; everolimus-eluting, 11.0%; and others, 4.0%). The overall success rate was 81.6% (2672/3271 patients). Twelve-month event rates were: total mortality, 2.4%; any MI, 0.7%; target lesion revascularization, 4.4%; target vessel revascularization, 6.7%; and total MACE, 9.4%. Conclusions Twelve-month success rates, safety profiles, and cumulative clinical outcomes of Korean CTO patients were favorable post-PCI. Long-term follow-up of larger study populations is necessary to validate our findings.