ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Strategy Selection and Outcomes of Tip-Detection in CTO-PCI: Intraplaque Tracking vs Antegrade Dissection and Re-Entry.
Article in JACC. Advances, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe tip-detection (TD) method expands antegrade options for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention, but criteria for selecting TD intraplaque tracking (TD-IPT) vs TD antegrade dissection and re-entry (TD-ADR) remain unclear.
objectivesThe authors evaluated factors associated with the initially selected TD strategy and procedural outcomes.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 73 TD-attempted CTO-percutaneous coronary intervention cases from November 2020 to December 2023 and classified them as TD-primary IPT (n = 37) or TD-primary ADR (n = 36). Procedural outcomes were evaluated in all cases, and secondary metrics in 69 successful cases.
resultsTD success was 97.3% (36/37; 95% CI: 85.8%-99.9%) and 97.2% (35/36; 95% CI: 85.5%-99.9%), and final procedural success was 94.6% (35/37; 95% CI: 81.8%-99.3%) and 97.2% (35/36; 95% CI: 85.5%-99.9%) in the TD-primary IPT and TD-primary ADR groups, respectively. TD-primary ADR was selected more often for J-CTO score ≥2 (83.3% [30/36] vs 62.2% [23/37]; P = 0.043) and severe calcification (47.2% [17/36] vs 2.7% [1/37]; P < 0.001). Among successful cases, lesion crossing time was shorter with TD-primary IPT (75 [51-108] vs 93 [63-137] minutes; P = 0.046), whereas stent length was shorter with TD-primary ADR (38 [28-54] vs 46 [38-64] mm; P = 0.041). In multivariable models, severe calcification was associated with longer lesion crossing time, and bending ≥45° was associated with longer stent length.
conclusionsTD-primary ADR was preferentially selected for complex, calcified CTOs. Procedural efficiency appeared driven mainly by lesion characteristics rather than the initial TD strategy, supporting individualized TD strategy selection based on lesion morphology and technical feasibility.
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.