As a public service to our readership, this article - peer reviewed by the Editors of EuroIntervention - has been published immediately upon acceptance as it was received. The content of this article is the sole responsibility of the authors, and not that of the journal or its publishers.
To read the full content of this article, please log in to download the PDF.
Methods and results: We evaluated 660 consecutive CTO PCIs (mean age: 66±11 years, 84% male). The mean J-CTO and EuroCTO (CASTLE) scores were 1.86 ± 1.2 and 1.74 ± 1.2, respectively. Antegrade wire escalation, antegrade dissection re-entry and retrograde approach were used in 82%, 14% and 37% of cases, respectively. Receiver-operator characteristic analysis demonstrated equal overall discriminatory capacity between the two scores (AUC: 0.698, 95%CI: 0.653-0.742 p<0.001 for J-CTO vs. AUC: 0.676, 95%: CI 0.627-0.725, p<0.001 for EuroCTO; AUC difference: 0.022, p=0.5). However, for more complex procedures [(J-CTO ³ 3 or EuroCTO (CASTLE) ³ 4)], the predictive capacity of EuroCTO (CASTLE) score appeared superior (AUC: 0.588, 95% CI 0.509-0.668, p=0.03 for EuroCTO (CASTLE) score vs. AUC: 0.473, 95% CI 0.393-0.553, p=NS for the J-CTO score, AUC difference: 0.115, p=0.04)
Conclusions: In this study, the novel EuroCTO (CASTLE) score was comparable to the J-CTO score in predicting CTO PCI outcome with a superior discriminatory capacity for the more complex cases.
Sign in to read and download the full articleForgot your password?
Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com