ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Validation and comparison of five chronic total occlusion scores to predict difficulty of percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe value of preprocedural coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) assessment in chronic total occlusion (CTO)remains under debatable This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of five CTO scoring systems for time-efficient guidewire (GW) crossing. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 220 patients with 220 CTO lesions who underwent CCTA prior to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with CTO Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in three centers were retrospectively enrolled. Procedural difficulty was classified using five scoring systems: the CT Registry of CTO Revascularization (CT-RECTOR), Korean Multicenter CTO CT Registry (KCCT), Multicenter CTO Registry of Japan (J-CTO), Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS), the clinical and lesion-related score (CL-score). The primary endpoint was successful GW crossing within 30 min. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were used to compare the predictive performance of the scores.
resultsGW crossing within 30 min and final success were achieved in 55% and 81% of cases, respectively. The area under the ROC curve for predicting successful GW crossing within 30 min was 0.609 for PROGRESS,0.783 for KCCT,0.731 for CL-score,0.853 for CT-RECTOR and 0.774 for J-CTO. The NRI for CT-RECTOR was significantly higher than for the other models (vs. PROGRESS: 0.70, p < 0.001; vs. J-CTO: 0.32, p < 0.001; vs. CL-score: 0.52, p < 0.001; vs. KCCT: 0.35, p < 0.001).
conclusionsCT-RECTOR and KCCT scoring systems demonstrated superior performance in predicting time-efficient GW crossing .CCTA may enhance anatomical assessment and support procedural planning and strategy optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.