Antegrade dissection and re-entry vs retrograde strategy in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and design of the ADRENALINE randomized study

Le résumé fourni par la source

RATIONALE: While antegrade wiring (AW) is the most common initial strategy for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), difficult CTO lesions frequently require either antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) or a retrograde strategy. Comparative data between ADR and the retrograde approach remain limited. DESIGN: The Antegrade Dissection vs Retrograde re-ENtry And Load of Interventionalist Effort (ADRENALINE) is a prospective, multicenter randomized study with a superiority design. It is planned to enroll 121 patients with difficult coronary CTO (J-CTO score ≥2) referred for CTO-PCI in accordance with the hybrid algorithm. Subjects undergoing successful AW will be included in the observational arm. Patients with failed or unattempted AW will be randomized 1:1 to ADR or retrograde CTO crossing strategy (n = 74). All patients will undergo pre- and postprocedural laboratory testing (including cardiac troponin T and creatine kinase-MB), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for late gadolinium enhancement, and health status assessment by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire and the Rose Dyspnea Scale. The co-primary endpoints are total procedure time and successful guidewire crossing. Additionally, the relationship between different recanalization strategies and stress among interventional cardiologists will be explored. CONCLUSION: ADRENALINE is the first randomized study of ADR vs retrograde strategy for difficult CTO PCI, assessing procedural outcomes, CMR-detected myocardial infarction, and 3-month quality of life. ENROLMENT STATUS: The first patient was enrolled on July 29, 2025. As of June 14, 2026, 45 patients (26 randomized, 19 observational) of the planned 121 patients have been enrolled. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: Identifier, NCT06878729.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.