Search the news
Total: 211
article image

TCTAP 2025

Bifurcation PCI Strategy After ISCHEMIA: Don¡¯t Touch Small Side Branch!

At TCTAP 2025, during the "Bifurcation PCI: New Concept and Approaches" session, Seung-Jung Park, MD, PhD (Asan Medical Center, Korea), delivered a lecture redefining the approach to bifurcation PCI in the wake of the ISCHEMIA study. Focusing on both non-left main (non-LM) and left main (LM) bifurcation lesions, he emphasized that these two entities demand fundamentally different strategies—simplification for the former, and individualized precision for the latter. His message for non-LM bifurcation was clear and bold: ¡°Don¡¯t touch small side branches.¡± Citing results from the ISCHEMIA trial and subsequent meta-analyses, he emphasized that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) confers no survival advantage over optimal medical therapy (OMT) in stable ischemic heart disease—even in patients with multivessel disease or severe ischemia. This shift in philosophy calls for a more judicious and physiology-driven approach to PCI, especially in bifurcation settings. In non-LM bifurcations, over 80% of side branches were found to supply less than 10% of the myocardial mass. These "small" branches—defined as those with a reference vessel diameter 2.5 mm)—especially in true bifurcation lesions (Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1)—he advocated upfront two-stent strategies. Still, he underscored that unnecessary treatment of jailed side branches, even when angiographically narrowed, should be deferred unless functionally significant. For LM bifurcations, he clarified that a separate strategy is warranted. Unlike non-LM lesions, LM disease often involves larger branches with substantial myocardium at risk. Here, intravascular imaging and FFR play pivotal roles in guiding one- versus two-stent strategies. When the left circumflex artery (LCX) is large and disease is truly bifurcated, upfront two-stenting is justified and can reduce the risk of side branch occlusion without compromising outcomes. He concluded by summarizing his clinical rules: Don¡¯t touch small side branches (

June 05, 2025 1506

article image

TCTAP 2025

FFR-Guided PCI Matches CABG in Long-Term Outcomes

In the ¡°Late-Breaking Clinical Trials 2025¡± session at TCTAP 2025, William F. Fearon, MD (Stanford University, USA), presented the final 5-year results of the FAME 3 trial, showing that fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI delivers comparable long-term outcomes to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease. CABG has long been considered the gold standard for multivessel coronary artery disease, with previous studies consistently demonstrating its long-term superiority over PCI. But according to him, most of that data is outdated. FAME 3 trial was designed to reflect contemporary clinical practice, incorporating advanced stent technologies, physiology-guided PCI, and optimal medical therapy. The FAME 3 trial enrolled 1,500 patients across 48 centers worldwide, randomizing them to receive either FFR-guided PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents or angiography-guided CABG. Importantly, both groups received optimal medical therapy, with high rates of statin, antiplatelet, beta-blocker, and RAS inhibitor use. At five years, the composite endpoint of death, stroke, or MI occurred in 16% of PCI patients and 14% of CABG patients (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89–1.52; p=0.27) (Figure). Landmark analysis indicated that the early advantages of CABG did not extend beyond the first year. Mortality was identical in both arms at 7.2%. While the stroke rate was numerically lower with PCI (1.9% vs. 3%), MI (8.2% vs. 5.3%) and repeat revascularization (15.6% vs. 7.8%) occurred more frequently in the PCI group (Table). ¡°Despite higher rates of MI and repeat revascularization, we found no difference in the hard endpoint of death, stroke, or MI at 5 years between FFR-guided PCI and CABG,¡± he said. ¡°This marks a notable shift from previous trials. There was no late accrual of benefit with CABG after the first year.¡± Subgroup analysis based on SYNTAX score revealed significant interaction: patients with low (

May 30, 2025 1507

article image

TCTAP 2025

Left Main and Multi-Vessel Revascularization 2025: Updated Guidelines and Beyond

At TCTAP 2025, during the "Left Main & Multi-Vessel: Updated Practice and New Concept" session, Gregg W. Stone, MD (Mount Sinai, USA), presented the 2025 updated guidelines on coronary revascularization, focusing on left main and multivessel disease. Reflecting recommendations from major U.S. cardiovascular societies, the new guidance emphasizes both clinical evidence and patient-centered decision-making. For symptomatic patients, revascularization (PCI or CABG) is a Class I recommendation to relieve angina when medical therapy fails. PCI becomes a reasonable option (Class IIa) in patients unsuitable for surgery. In left main disease, CABG is recommended for high-complexity cases due to survival benefits. When PCI can achieve equivalent revascularization, it may be reasonable in low-to-moderate complexity settings. Contrary to expectations, diabetes did not significantly alter outcomes in left main disease, though complexity (measured by SYNTAX score) did show impact, with CABG favored in high-risk cases. For multivessel disease, pooled trial data reveal a modest mortality benefit for CABG over PCI—especially in diabetics, where the difference reaches 5.5%. Non-diabetic patients show no significant mortality difference. A consistent more stroke risk (~1%) with CABG remains a consideration. He referenced trials like SYNTAX, EXCEL, and FAME 3. While early benefits of CABG were noted, long-term outcomes—such as death, stroke, and MI—tended to converge. The FAME 3 trial showed PCI and CABG have similar long-term results in triple-vessel disease. In patients with left ventricular dysfunction, CABG showed a survival benefit in the STICH trial. However, this was not replicated in the smaller REVIVED-BCIS2 trial, highlighting variability in results depending on study size, duration, and patient characteristics. He closed by stressing the importance of shared decision-making. ¡°For many patients, outcomes between PCI and CABG are very similar,¡± he noted. ¡°Preferences, comorbidities, and anatomy should all guide the final treatment plan.¡± Left Main & Multi-Vessel: Updated Practice and New Concept Friday, April 25, 8:30 AM-9:40 AM Coronary Theater, Level 1 Check The Session

May 30, 2025 1403

article image

TCTAP 2025

TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis : Challenges, Data, and Strategies From Asan Medical Center

In the ¡°TAVR: Current Status and Future Perspective¡± session at TCTAP 2025, Jung-Min Ahn, MD, PhD (Asan Medical Center, Korea), presented a comprehensive lecture on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), addressing the key anatomical, procedural, and clinical challenges that distinguish BAV from the more commonly studied tricuspid aortic valve. Although early randomized trials in TAVR excluded BAV patients due to their complex anatomy, recent evidence—including results from PARTNER III and other contemporary registries—has supported TAVR¡¯s effectiveness even in low-risk populations. Notably, the average patient age in current TAVR cohorts has decreased from 82–84 years in early trials to around 74 years today, increasing the prevalence of BAV cases encountered in real-world practice. BAV patients are typically younger, more often male, and have fewer comorbidities. However, their anatomical profile is more challenging: severe aortic stenosis with higher transvalvular gradients, larger and more asymmetric valve complexes, and substantially greater calcification volume compared with tricuspid aortic stenosis. These features raise both periprocedural and long-term risks, necessitating a more cautious approach to valve sizing and deployment. Figure 1. Clinical and Anatomical Challenges in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis The Asan Medical Center data demonstrated that in BAV cases, operators more frequently performed both pre- and post-dilatation and tended to implant larger valves than in tricuspid cases. Despite these differences, echocardiographic outcomes—including effective orifice area and transvalvular gradients—were similar at two-year follow-up. Rates of death and stroke were also comparable. To better understand the safety and efficacy of TAVR in BAV patients, he presented results from a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing outcomes between BAV and TAV aortic stenosis patients. Among over 13,000 patients from 34 studies, procedural complications were significantly more frequent in BAV TAVR recipients. Notably, the risk of moderate-or-worse paravalvular leakage was increased by 59%, while the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation showed no significant difference. However, aortic root injury occurred 81% more often in BAV cases. Major bleeding rates were comparable between the two groups. Furthermore, the meta-analysis identified a small but statistically significant increase in early adverse events in BAV patients: the 30-day mortality risk was elevated by 34%, and the risk of stroke increased by 27% compared to TAV patients. These findings underscore the importance of anatomical assessment and individualized procedural strategies in BAV TAVR. Figure 2. Comparative Outcomes of TAVR in Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis He concluded, ¡°While BAV remains a complex entity, TAVR has proven to be both feasible and effective, but requires individualized planning with careful attention to anatomy, calcium distribution, and valve sizing.¡± This session emphasized the critical role of imaging-guided, anatomy-specific strategies in optimizing TAVR outcomes for this unique and increasingly encountered patient population. TAVR: Current Status and Future Perspective Saturday, April 26, 9:50 AM-11:10 AM Coronary Theater, Level 1 Check The Session

May 23, 2025 1348

article image

TCTAP 2025

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Intervention: Exploring the Future of TMVI Therapies

At TCTAP 2025, during the ¡°Mitral and Tricuspid Intervention¡± session held on April 25, Juan F. Granada, MD (Cardiovascular Research Foundation, USA), delivered a compelling presentation titled ¡°Transcatheter Mitral Valve Intervention: What Is Next?¡± His lecture offered a comprehensive review of recent innovations in mitral valve therapies and addressed the clinical limitations of current approaches while presenting an optimistic view of evolving transcatheter solutions. He began by outlining the historical progression from surgical mitral valve repair/replacement (dating back to the 1960s) to current transcatheter mitral edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER). He emphasized how iterative innovations have expanded treatment indications, including valve-in-valve, valve-in-ring, and secondary MR (SMR) in high-risk patients. He highlighted the complexity of MR cases, particularly among patients with severe mitral annular calcification (MAC), multiple cleft leaflets, or bioprosthetic failure. These anatomies often render patients unsuitable for M-TEER, necessitating new TMVI platforms. He pointed out that while TEER remains a safe and effective option, especially in high-volume centers, it has shown reduced efficacy in complex anatomies and higher residual MR rates in low-volume centers. He presented future directions involving augmentation devices and leaflet extensions, along with refined imaging tools and device reversibility mechanisms. A significant portion of the lecture focused on the emerging transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) systems, such as Cephea, AltaValve, Tioga, and Intrepid. He reviewed early feasibility and pivotal study outcomes, comparing rates of surgical conversion, vascular complications, bleeding, and 1-year mortality across different platforms. Among them, Cephea demonstrated notable procedural success and safety, supporting its role in non-surgical, anatomically challenging patients. He concluded by identifying key hurdles to TMVR adoption—namely, high screen failure rates, anatomical variability, and frailty concerns. However, ongoing advancements in device adaptability, delivery systems, and ancillary procedural tools are steadily addressing these barriers. His presentation reinforced the notion that next-generation TMVI technologies must be patient-centric, anatomically versatile, and outcome-driven. His forward-looking perspective underscored the potential of TMVI to reshape the management of mitral regurgitation in the coming decade. Figure 1. Comparative overview of major TMVR platforms in early feasibility studies. Adapted from Granada JF, TCTAP 2025. Mitral and Tricuspid Intervention Friday, April 25, 10:30 AM-12:15 PM Valve & Endovascular Theater, Level 1 Check The Session

May 23, 2025 767

article image

TCTAP 2025

Current Challenges and Future Directions in Valve-in-Valve Procedures

At TCTAP 2025, during the ¡°TAVR: Current Status and Future Perspective¡± session held on April 26 in the Coronary Theater, Tullio Palmerini, MD (University of Bologna, Italy), delivered a comprehensive overview of the current landscape and persistent challenges in valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). As the use of bioprosthetic surgical valves continues to rise, so does the clinical relevance of ViV procedures for structural valve deterioration. However, multiple procedural and anatomical hurdles remain, limiting its universal applicability and long-term outcomes. He began by outlining the major complications associated with ViV, including coronary obstruction, patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM), and anatomical difficulties associated with sutureless or stentless valves. He also highlighted concerns regarding valve-related embolic debris, durability, optimal antithrombotic therapy, and the comparative safety and efficacy of TAVR versus redo surgery (Figure 1). Figure 1. Current Problems with ViV Procedure Among these, coronary obstruction remains one of the most feared complications, particularly due to sinus sequestration or leaflet displacement toward the coronary ostia. He detailed protective strategies such as CHIMNEY stenting, BASILICA, and emphasized that newer technologies like the short cut device may offer more reliable protection in the future—personally stating he finds it especially promising. Another major focus was on patient–prosthesis mismatch, which affects over half of ViV patients according to STS and TVT registry data. He stressed the value of bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) as a key technique for the successful procedure. He devoted significant time to describing the mechanics, timing, and safety profile of BVF, citing both registry data and multicenter experiences. Importantly, delayed BVF—performed after valve implantation—was associated with lower residual gradients and better hemodynamic outcomes. Issues surrounding sutureless and stentless valves were also addressed, particularly the anatomical ambiguity they present in identifying landing zones and achieving adequate anchoring. These factors contribute to higher procedural failure rates, as noted in the VIVID registry. In conclusion, he emphasized that while ViV TAVR is generally safe and effective, procedure planning, device selection, and operator technique are crucial to optimizing outcomes. He called for randomized controlled trials, especially in intermediate-risk patients aged 70–80 years, to better define long-term strategies for ViV management. TAVR: Current Status and Future Perspective Saturday, April 26, 9:50 AM-11:20 AM Coronary Theater, Level 1 Check The Session

May 16, 2025 683

article image

TCTAP 2025

Lessons Learned from EARLY TAVR Trial

At TCTAP 2025, during the ¡°TAVR: Current Status and Future Perspective¡± session held on April 26 in the Coronary Theater, Philippe Généreux, MD (Morristown Medical Center, USA), presented pivotal findings from the EARLY TAVR trial, a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial that challenges the conventional wait-for-symptoms approach in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). The study enrolled 1,578 patients, ultimately randomizing 901 asymptomatic individuals aged ¡Ã65 years with severe AS, preserved LVEF (¡Ã50%), and an STS score ¡Â10% (Figure 1). Asymptomatic status was confirmed via negative treadmill stress testing, or, when not feasible, by detailed clinical history. Participants were randomized 1:1 to early transfemoral TAVR (using SAPIEN 3 or SAPIEN 3 Ultra) versus clinical surveillance (CS). Figure 1. Study design The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, any stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization. After a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the event rate was significantly lower in the TAVR group (35.1%) compared to CS (51.2%) with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% CI: 0.40–0.63], p < 0.001 (Figure 2). Notably, this translates into a number needed to treat (NNT) of ~6 at 2 years, highlighting the tangible benefit of early intervention. Figure 2. Primary Endpoint Although all-cause mortality alone did not significantly differ (HR 0.93, p = 0.74), the lower rates of unplanned cardiovascular events and stroke underscore the importance of timely aortic valve replacement. Moreover, nearly half of patients initially managed with CS required AVR within one year, with a large proportion presenting with advanced symptoms or acute valve syndromes, which are associated with worse procedural and clinical outcomes. He emphasized that early referral and structured planning for TAVR should be considered even in asymptomatic patients. ¡°There is no penalty to early TAVR,¡± he stated, reinforcing that delayed intervention may increase the risk of irreversible cardiac damage or stroke. In summary, the EARLY TAVR trial offers robust evidence supporting a proactive treatment strategy for asymptomatic severe AS, redefining clinical practice toward earlier and safer intervention with transcatheter valve therapy. TAVR: Current Status and Future Perspective Saturday, April 26, 9:50 AM-11:20 AM Coronary Theater, Level 1 Check The Session

May 16, 2025 591

article image

TCTAP 2025

Dr. Do-Yoon Kang Highlights TEER as a Promising Strategy in Atrial Functional MR

At the TCTAP 2025 Live Case & Lecture Session 8 held on April 25 in the Valve & Endovascular Theater, Do-Yoon Kang, MD, PhD (Asan Medical Center, Korea), delivered a highly anticipated featured lecture on the evolving role of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) in atrial functional mitral regurgitation (AFMR), a subtype of functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) gaining growing clinical attention. Titled "TEER for Atrial Functional MR: Evidence and Future Perspectives," the presentation provided a comprehensive synthesis of pathophysiological insights, procedural outcomes, and emerging clinical data that underscore TEER's role in the treatment algorithm for this complex entity. He opened by distinguishing atrial functional MR from the classic ventricular subtype, emphasizing that AFMR is primarily driven by isolated mitral annular dilation, left atrial enlargement, and insufficient leaflet remodeling—often in the setting of long-standing atrial fibrillation. "Atrial functional MR represents a distinct pathophysiologic mechanism. Unlike ventricular FMR, left ventricular systolic function is preserved and annular dynamics are the central driver," he explained, citing foundational echocardiographic data from Asan Medical Center and international registries. Referencing a 2019 Asan cohort, he noted that moderate or greater AFMR was present in 1.8% of atrial fibrillation patients. The structural profile of these patients typically includes preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ¡Ã 60%), normal indexed left ventricular (LV) volume, and significant left atrial enlargement—findings that are now central to the proposed diagnostic criteria published by Zoghbi et al. in 2022. The lecture moved swiftly into therapeutic strategies, where he addressed the limitations of both surgical intervention and conservative management. "Surgical outcomes in AFMR remain suboptimal due to older patient age, high comorbidity burden, and relatively preserved ventricular function," he explained, citing data from Cleveland Clinic and multicenter observational series. Notably, surgical mitral repair or replacement in AFMR patients was associated with high mortality and recurrent heart failure hospitalization. Against this backdrop, TEER has emerged as a non-surgical alternative for high-risk patients. He presented data from the Global EXPAND registry, MITRA-TUNE trial, and Asan Medical Center's (AMC) own experience. In MITRA-TUNE, which enrolled patients with preserved EF and minimal ventricular dilation, TEER achieved an 83% procedural success rate. The study reported 2% in-hospital mortality and 5% mortality at 30 days. At two years, combined all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization exceeded 40%, underscoring the high-risk nature of this population—but also demonstrating that TEER could offer clinical benefit in a subset of carefully selected patients. Outcomes from AMC mirrored these findings. Immediate post-TEER echocardiography showed marked reductions in MR severity and promising one-year follow-up data, including symptomatic improvement. However, he remained cautious, emphasizing the limitations of existing studies. "Registry-based evidence is encouraging but plagued by small sample sizes, heterogeneous definitions, and inconsistent inclusion criteria," he noted. Looking forward, he highlighted ongoing efforts to standardize AFMR classification and expand the evidence base through an international registry led by Mayo Clinic. This multi-center retrospective study involving centers from the U.S., Europe, and Korea aims to compare TEER against conservative management in terms of mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and symptomatic improvement at one year. In his closing remarks, he offered a tempered optimism: "Atrial functional MR is a unique clinical entity that deserves a tailored approach. TEER is emerging as a valuable option for patients who are poor surgical candidates, but we need robust randomized data to define its role definitively." The session reinforced the notion that while AFMR remains a diagnostic and therapeutic frontier, evolving imaging definitions and procedural strategies like TEER are poised to change the clinical landscape—offering hope for a patient population with limited therapeutic options—pending the validation of ongoing clinical trials. Live Case & Lecture 8: Mitral TEER Friday, April 25, 8:30 AM-9:27 AM Valve & Endovascular Theater, Level 1 Check The Session

May 09, 2025 891

article image

TCTAP 2025

Dr. Sripal Bangalore Recalibrates the Post-ISCHEMIA Era: Guideline-Driven Revascularization in Left ...

At the TCTAP 2025 Workshop Session held on April 25, titled "Management of Ischemic Heart Disease 2025: ISCHEMIA Trial Has Been a Major Inescapable Turning Point", Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA (New York University Grossman School of Medicine, USA), delivered a thought-provoking lecture that redefined the strategic role of revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD), particularly those with left main coronary artery disease (LM) and three-vessel coronary artery disease (3VD). Dr. Bangalore meticulously synthesized long-term trial data and updated guideline recommendations, emphasizing a precision-based approach to coronary revascularization that bridges historical lessons and future clinical demands. "The ISCHEMIA trial fundamentally changed how we view revascularization in SIHD," he began, referring to the landmark study which demonstrated no overall mortality benefit of an initial invasive strategy over optimal medical therapy (OMT) in the general SIHD population. According to 7-year follow-up data from ISCHEMIA EXTEND, all-cause mortality remained statistically neutral between the invasive and conservative arms—13.4% versus 12.7%, respectively (HR [hazard ratio] 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85–1.18; p = 0.741). However, he cautioned against a monolithic interpretation of these results. "The nuance lies in the subgroups," he asserted. "Patients with left main disease or 3VD—especially those with impaired left ventricular function—may still derive substantial benefit from revascularization, particularly surgical revascularization." He reinforced this point with historical and contemporary evidence. He cited data from Yusuf et al. (1994) and modern subgroup analyses showing that CABG continues to offer a survival benefit in high-risk anatomic subsets. In left main disease, particularly in patients with reduced ejection fraction and severe symptoms, CABG consistently outperforms medical therapy alone. "We must not lose sight of what we've learned over decades of clinical trials," he said. "Revascularization isn't obsolete—it simply needs to be better targeted." Beyond survival, the session emphasized quality of life as a key clinical endpoint. Drawing from Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) data within the ISCHEMIA trial, he showed that patients with angina experienced significantly better symptom relief and quality-of-life improvements with revascularization, particularly when complete revascularization was achieved. "In asymptomatic patients, the benefit is minimal," he noted. "However, for those with persistent angina, revascularization provides not just relief—but durability." Moreover, data from the FAME 2 (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2) trial and post-hoc ISCHEMIA analyses indicated that invasive strategies meaningfully reduced spontaneous myocardial infarctions and unplanned hospitalizations for unstable angina, resulting in a significant reduction in cardiovascular stays (685 vs. 1,095 days alive out of hospital, p < 0.001). "Morbidity reduction is an often-overlooked but critical endpoint," he emphasized. "Patients may not live longer, but they certainly live better." Turning to clinical practice guidelines, he highlighted the evolving stances of major societies. The 2021 ACC/AHA Revascularization Guidelines recommend CABG in SIHD patients with normal ejection fraction and left main disease to improve survival. In 3VD, CABG is considered reasonable, whereas the survival benefit of PCI remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the 2024 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes offer a more nuanced classification, granting PCI a role in patients with low anatomical complexity and preserved ejection fraction. "We're moving toward more individualized algorithms," he explained. "Revascularization decisions should now integrate anatomy, physiology, symptoms, and patient preference." Risk stratification tools such as the SYNTAX score play an increasingly important role in these individualized decisions. In closing, he urged a paradigm shift: from an all-or-nothing approach to a risk-calibrated, patient-centered model. "The future of revascularization is not about choosing between PCI and CABG, or even between medicine and intervention," he concluded. "It's about identifying the right patients, for the right therapy, at the right time—using evidence as our compass, and the patient's life as our guide." His session not only reframed the implications of ISCHEMIA, but also charted a forward-looking course for clinicians managing complex coronary disease in the post-ISCHEMIA era. His message was clear: revascularization still has a vital role—but only when it's precision-guided, incorporating anatomical complexity scores, functional assessments, and comprehensive patient evaluations. Management of Ischemic Heart Disease 2025: ISCHEMIA Trial Has Been a Major Inescapable Turning Point Thursday, April 24, 8:10 AM-9:40 AM Coronary Theater, Level 1 Check The Session

May 09, 2025 754

article image

TCTAP 2025

Preparing Second Attempt for Previous Failed CTO PCI

Jung-Kyu Han, MD, PhD Seoul National University Hospital, Korea Chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) remains one of interventional cardiology's most technically challenging procedures. Despite advancements in crossing devices, microcatheters, and guidewires, initial procedural failure rates range from 10-40%, depending on operator experience and lesion complexity. However, evidence suggests that a carefully planned second attempt can achieve successful revascularization in approximately 50-70% of previously failed cases when appropriate patient selection, optimal timing, and technical modifications are implemented. Patient Selection: Evidence-Based Clinical Criteria Selecting patients for reattempted CTO PCI requires objective measures of myocardial ischemia and symptoms. Optimal candidates include those with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina class ¡Ã2 despite optimal medical therapy. On stress imaging, patients should also have objective evidence of myocardial ischemia (>10% of left ventricular mass). In addition, myocardial viability should be confirmed by cardiac MRI, PET, or dobutamine echocardiography. The best candidates have occlusions in prognostically significant territories, such as the proximal LAD, large dominant RCA, or last remaining patent vessel. Retrospective analyses have shown that successful CTO revascularization in these patients significantly improved angina symptoms (Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores) and reduced major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12-24 months. Therapeutic Window: Pathophysiological Considerations The optimal timing for a second attempt is within 60-90 days after the initial failure. This interval allows for the resolution of procedure-induced vascular inflammation (7-14 days), remodeling of dissection planes from initial wiring attempts (30-45 days), and stabilization of plaque architecture before excessive fibrotic reorganization (>90 days). A study by Zhong et al. (JACC Intv. 2022) demonstrated that reattempted procedures performed within the optimal therapeutic window of 60-90 days achieved a significantly higher success rate with an odds ratio of 0.85 per 90 day increment (95% CI: 0.73-0.98). Advanced Imaging CT coronary angiography with dedicated CTO protocols can provide critical information on the three-dimensional course of the occluded segment, calcium burden quantification, side branch anatomy at the proximal and distal caps, and the size and quality of potential collateral channels. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance significantly enhances procedural success during reattempts. This includes precise identification of proximal cap microanatomy (e.g., calcium arc thickness), confirmation of true lumen versus subintimal wire position, guided re-entry from subintimal space to true lumen, and optimization of stent sizing and expansion. Technical Modifications: Lesion-Specific Approach The procedural strategy for a second attempt should be tailored based on the failure mode encountered during the initial attempt. For proximal cap penetration failures, advancement to higher gram-force wires (12-30 g), rotational atherectomy for calcified caps, and "scratch-and-go" techniques with stiff guidewires or dedicated CTO devices are recommended. In cases of wire propagation failures, implementation of advanced algorithms such as STAR, mini-STAR, or LAST technique, along with parallel wire technique using microcatheters to optimize wire position, can be beneficial. For distal cap re-entry failures, retrograde approaches via septal or epicardial collaterals for complex lesions (J-CTO score ¡Ã3), reverse CART technique with appropriately sized balloons, and use of dedicated re-entry devices like the Stingray¢â system for challenging anatomies are appropriate strategies. When equipment delivery failure occurs, enhanced guide catheter support techniques and anchor balloon techniques can improve device delivery. Complication Avoidance Strategies Second-attempt CTO PCI must incorporate enhanced safety protocols to minimize complications. These include radiation dose minimization techniques (15 frames/second fluoroscopy, collimation), stage-wise contrast volume limitations (10%), persistent angina symptoms despite optimal medical therapy, and preserved viability in the target vessel territory. As dedicated CTO equipment continues to evolve, hybrid algorithms are refined, and operator expertise grows in specialized CTO centers, outcomes for this challenging subset of coronary interventions are expected to improve further. Prospective randomized trials evaluating staged hybrid approaches and novel crossing technologies will be essential to establish definitive, evidence-based protocols for reattempted CTO interventions. CTO PCI Technical Forum: Learn From Masters Friday, April 25, 3:10 PM-4:40 PM Presentation Room 1, Level 1 Check The Session

April 25, 2025 594