Utility of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography in lesion characterization and treatment planning for peripheral Chronic Total Occlusions: A comprehensive analysis of crossing difficulty.

To investigate whether Dual-Energy Computed Tomography (DECT) could be useful in the lesion characterization and endovascular treatment planning of symptomatic patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) due to Chronic Total Occlusions (CTO). Between 2018 and 2022, 60 symptomatic patients (52 male, age 71 years) with peripheral arterial CTO underwent DECT angiography before percutaneous endovascular treatment. Patients were classified, according to guidewire crossing difficulty into four categories, which were subsequently correlated with DECT values, including Dual Energy Index (DEI) and Effective Z (Zeff). DECT values were also corelated with crossing time. The crossing difficulty was further correlated with the Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus Document (TASC II) classification. Technical success, defined as perceived antegrade true lumen or subintimal crossing, was achieved in 76.7 %. Among the cases, 20 were deemed easy, 14 moderate, 12 hard and 14 were failed attempts. Statistical analysis revealed a significant correlation between DEI, Zeff values, and the crossing difficulty categories (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was also a correlation between crossing time and DECT values. However, no significant correlation was recorded between difficulty categories and TASC II classification. Pre-procedural DECT angiography provides valuable information for patient selection and planning of the revascularization strategy. Moreover, it is helpful in the selection of the appropriate PTA materials, based on the lesion characteristics. Further research should be invested in this important field, to determine the optimal treatment approach in patients suffering from PAD due to CTOs.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.