RT Journal Article
T1 Choice of CTO scores to predict procedural success in clinical practice. A comparison of 4 different CTO PCI scores in a comprehensive national registry including expert and learning CTO operators
A1 Salinas, Pablo
A1 Gonzalo, Nieves
A1 Moreno, Víctor H.
A1 Fuentes, Manuel
A1 Santos-Martinez, Sandra
A1 Fernandez-Diaz, José Antonio
A1 Amat-Santos, Ignacio J.
A1 Bosa Ojeda, Francisco
A1 Caballero Borrego, Juan
A1 Cuesta, Javier
A1 de la Torre Hernández, José María
A1 Diego-Nieto, Alejandro
A1 Dubois, Daniela
A1 Galeote, Guillermo
A1 Goicolea, Javier
A1 Gutiérrez, Alejandro
A1 Jiménez-Fernández, Miriam
A1 Jiménez-Mazuecos, Jesús
A1 Jurado, Alfonso
A1 Lacunza, Javier
A1 Lee, Dae-Hyun
A1 López, María
A1 Lozano, Fernando
A1 Martin-Moreiras, Javier
A1 Martin-Yuste, Victoria
A1 Millán, Raúl
A1 Miñana, Gema
A1 Mohandes, Mohsen
A1 Morales-Ponce, Francisco J.
A1 Núñez, Julio
A1 Ojeda, Soledad
A1 Pan, Manuel
A1 Rivero, Fernando
A1 Robles, Javier
A1 Rodríguez-Leiras, Sergio
A1 Rojas, Sergio
A1 Rondán, Juan
A1 Rumiz, Eva
A1 Sabaté, Manel
A1 Sanchís, Juan
A1 Vaquerizo, Beatriz
A1 Escaned, Javier
K1 Calibration
K1 Percutaneous coronary intervention
K1 Coronary artery
K1 Registries
K1 Calibración
K1 Intervención coronaria percutánea
K1 Vasos coronarios
K1 Registros
AB BackgroundWe aimed to compare the performance of the recent CASTLE score to J-CTO, CL and PROGRESS CTO scores in a comprehensive database of percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusion procedures.MethodsScores were calculated using raw data from 1,342 chronic total occlusion procedures included in REBECO Registry that includes learning and expert operators. Calibration, discrimination and reclassification were evaluated and compared.ResultsMean score values were: CASTLE 1.60±1.10, J-CTO 2.15±1.24, PROGRESS 1.68±0.94 and CL 2.52±1.52 points. The overall percutaneous coronary intervention success rate was 77.8%. Calibration was good for CASTLE and CL, but not for J-CTO or PROGRESS scores. Discrimination: the area under the curve (AUC) of CASTLE (0.633) was significantly higher than PROGRESS (0.557) and similar to J-CTO (0.628) and CL (0.652). Reclassification: CASTLE, as assessed by integrated discrimination improvement, was superior to PROGRESS (integrated discrimination improvement +0.036, p<0.001), similar to J-CTO and slightly inferior to CL score (– 0.011, p = 0.004). Regarding net reclassification improvement, CASTLE reclassified better than PROGRESS (overall continuous net reclassification improvement 0.379, p<0.001) in roughly 20% of cases.ConclusionProcedural percutaneous coronary intervention difficulty is not consistently depicted by available chronic total occlusion scores and is influenced by the characteristics of each chronic total occlusion cohort. In our study population, including expert and learning operators, the CASTLE score had slightly better overall performance along with CL score. However, we found only intermediate performance in the c-statistic predicting chronic total occlusion success among all scores.
PB Public Library of Science. Giuseppe Andò, University of Messina, ITALY
YR 2021
FD 2021-04-02
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10668/4030
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10668/4030
LA en
NO Salinas P, Gonzalo N, Moreno VH, Fuentes M, Santos-Martinez S, Fernandez-Diaz JA, et al. Choice of CTO scores to predict procedural success in clinical practice. A comparison of 4 different CTO PCI scores in a comprehensive national registry including expert and learning CTO operators. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 2;16(4):e0245898
DS RISalud
RD Apr 19, 2025