IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0245898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo Salinas
  • Nieves Gonzalo
  • Víctor H Moreno
  • Manuel Fuentes
  • Sandra Santos-Martinez
  • José Antonio Fernandez-Diaz
  • Ignacio J Amat-Santos
  • Francisco Bosa Ojeda
  • Juan Caballero Borrego
  • Javier Cuesta
  • José María de la Torre Hernández
  • Alejandro Diego-Nieto
  • Daniela Dubois
  • Guillermo Galeote
  • Javier Goicolea
  • Alejandro Gutiérrez
  • Miriam Jiménez-Fernández
  • Jesús Jiménez-Mazuecos
  • Alfonso Jurado
  • Javier Lacunza
  • Dae-Hyun Lee
  • María López
  • Fernando Lozano
  • Javier Martin-Moreiras
  • Victoria Martin-Yuste
  • Raúl Millán
  • Gema Miñana
  • Mohsen Mohandes
  • Francisco J Morales-Ponce
  • Julio Núñez
  • Soledad Ojeda
  • Manuel Pan
  • Fernando Rivero
  • Javier Robles
  • Sergio Rodríguez-Leiras
  • Sergio Rojas
  • Juan Rondán
  • Eva Rumiz
  • Manel Sabaté
  • Juan Sanchís
  • Beatriz Vaquerizo
  • Javier Escaned

Abstract

Background: We 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. Methods: Scores 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. Results: Mean 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

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Salinas & Nieves Gonzalo & Víctor H Moreno & Manuel Fuentes & Sandra Santos-Martinez & José Antonio Fernandez-Diaz & Ignacio J Amat-Santos & Francisco Bosa Ojeda & Juan Caballero Borrego & Javie, 2021. "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, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245898
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245898
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245898&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0245898?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.