Comparative assessment of patient outcomes with intraluminal or subintimal crossing of infrainguinal peripheral artery chronic total occlusions

This study compares procedural complications and clinical outcomes between subintimal crossing versus intraluminal crossing during endovascular treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery chronic total occlusions (CTO). We identified 1335 CTO interventions in 1001 patients from the multicenter Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry from January 2005 to October 2015. Outcomes included 30-day and 12-month all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke, peripheral artery stent, or vessel, thrombosis (ST), need for any target limb endovascular or surgical revascularization, target limb major amputation and procedural complications. A subintimal crossing technique was necessary in 388 lesions (27% overall in 1335 lesions; 34% (n=351) in 1023 femoropopliteal lesions, and 12% (n=37) in 312 infrapopliteal lesions, p<0.01) with a lower procedural (p<0.01) and technical (p<0.01) success than the intraluminal in both femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal interventions. There were no significant differences in procedural complications, major adverse cardiac events, or clinically driven target limb revascularization at 1 year between the two groups, except a higher residual dissection rate in the subintimal crossing group than the intraluminal group in femoropopliteal target vessels (p = 0.04).