Randomized Comparison of a CrossBoss First Versus Standard Wire Escalation Strategy for Crossing Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: The CrossBoss First Trial

OBJECTIVES: The authors performed a multicenter, randomized-controlled, clinical trial comparing upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter versus antegrade wire escalation for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions. BACKGROUND: There is equipoise about the optimal initial strategy for crossing coronary chronic total occlusions. METHODS: The primary endpoints were the time required to cross the chronic total occlusion or abort the procedure and the frequency of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary endpoints were technical and procedural success, total procedure time, fluoroscopy time required to cross and total fluoroscopy time, total air kerma radiation dose, total contrast volume, and equipment use. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2017, 246 patients were randomized to the CrossBoss catheter (n = 122) or wire escalation (n = 124) at 11 U.S. centers. The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of the study groups were similar. Technical and procedural success were 87.8% and 84.1%, respectively, and were similar in the 2 groups. Crossing time was similar: 56 min (interquartile range: 33 to 93 min) in the CrossBoss group and 66 min (interquartile range: 36 to 105 min) in the wire escalation group (p = 0.323), as was as the incidence of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events (3.28% vs. 4.03%; p = 1.000). There were no significant differences in the secondary study endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with wire escalation, upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions was associated with similar crossing time, similar success and complication rates, and similar equipment use and cost

Randomized Comparison of a CrossBoss First Versus Standard Wire Escalation Strategy for Crossing Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: The CrossBoss First Trial

OBJECTIVES: The authors performed a multicenter, randomized-controlled, clinical trial comparing upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter versus antegrade wire escalation for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions. BACKGROUND: There is equipoise about the optimal initial strategy for crossing coronary chronic total occlusions. METHODS: The primary endpoints were the time required to cross the chronic total occlusion or abort the procedure and the frequency of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary endpoints were technical and procedural success, total procedure time, fluoroscopy time required to cross and total fluoroscopy time, total air kerma radiation dose, total contrast volume, and equipment use. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2017, 246 patients were randomized to the CrossBoss catheter (n = 122) or wire escalation (n = 124) at 11 U.S. centers. The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of the study groups were similar. Technical and procedural success were 87.8% and 84.1%, respectively, and were similar in the 2 groups. Crossing time was similar: 56 min (interquartile range: 33 to 93 min) in the CrossBoss group and 66 min (interquartile range: 36 to 105 min) in the wire escalation group (p = 0.323), as was as the incidence of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events (3.28% vs. 4.03%; p = 1.000). There were no significant differences in the secondary study endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with wire escalation, upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions was associated with similar crossing time, similar success and complication rates, and similar equipment use and cost

The State of the Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffold: Consensus From an Expert Panel.

Significant progress has been made in the percutaneous coronary intervention technique from the days of balloon angioplasty to modern-day metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). Although metallic stents solve a temporary problem of acute recoil following balloon angioplasty, they leave behind a permanent problem implicated in very late events (in addition to neoatherosclerosis). BRS were developed as a potential solution to this permanent problem, but the promise of these devices has been tempered by clinical trials showing increased risk of safety outcomes, both early and late. This is not too dissimilar to the challenges seen with first-generation DES in which refinement of deployment technique, prolongation of dual antiplatelet therapy, and technical iteration mitigated excess risk of very late stent thrombosis, making DES the treatment of choice for coronary artery disease. This white paper discusses the factors potentially implicated in the excess risks, including the scaffold consideration and deployment technique, and outlines patient and lesion selection, implantation technique, and dual antiplatelet therapy considerations to potentially mitigate this excess risk with the first-generation thick strut Absorb scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois). It remains to be seen whether these considerations together with technical iterations will ultimately close the gap between scaffolds and metal stents for short-term events while at the same time preserving options for future revascularization once the scaffold bioresorbs