Table 3.
Crossing techniques utilized in the study patients, classified according to whether or not technical success was achieved or not.
| Crossing technique | Overall (n=1036) | Technical Success (n=940) | Technical Failure (n=96) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Antegrade wire escalation (%) | 71 | 71 | 70 | 0.814 |
|
| ||||
| Antegrade dissection/re-entry (%) | 36 | 34 | 49 | 0.005 |
|
| ||||
| Retrograde (%) | 42 | 39 | 66 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Number of approaches* | 1.5±0.8 | 1.5±0.8 | 1.9±0.8 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Number of approach changes | 0.5±0.8 | 0.5±0.8 | 0.9±0.8 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Initial approach | ||||
| Antegrade wire escalation (%) | 66 | 67 | 60 | 0.030 |
| Antegrade dissection/re-entry (%) | 14 | 15 | 10 | |
| Retrograde (%) | 19 | 18 | 29 | |
|
| ||||
| Initial approach successful | ||||
| Overall (%) | 58 | |||
| Antegrade wire escalation (%) | 55 | - | - | - |
| Antegrade dissection/re-entry (%) | 60 | |||
| Retrograde (%) | 66 | |||
|
| ||||
| Final successful crossing technique | ||||
| Antegrade wire escalation (%) | - | 46 | - | - |
| Antegrade dissection/re-entry (%) | 26 | |||
| Retrograde (%) | 28 | |||
*
mean ± standard deviation