Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 23, 2026

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
Comparative validation of risk scores for in-hospital complications following chronic total occlusion percutaneous
Enrico Poletti1, Sudhir Thotakura2, Kathleen E Kearney3
1Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Department of Cardiology, Hartcentrum Ziekenhuis aan de Stroom (ZAS) Middelheim, Antwerp, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Insights
The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) score is superior for predicting in-hospital mortality in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO-PCI) compared to the PROGRESS-CTO model. BMC2 offers better accuracy for predicting patient outcomes in this high-risk procedure.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Health Outcomes Research
Background:
- Chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO-PCI) is a complex, high-risk cardiovascular procedure.
- Accurate prediction of in-hospital outcomes is crucial for patient management and procedural planning in CTO-PCI.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the predictive performance of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) score and the Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO) model for in-hospital outcomes after CTO-PCI.
- To evaluate the discrimination and calibration of both risk models.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 1,157 CTO-PCI procedures performed between 2019 and 2023 at a single tertiary center.
- Primary endpoint: in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), acute kidney injury, dialysis, stroke, periprocedural myocardial infarction, pericardiocentesis, and coronary perforation.
- Model performance assessed using area under the curve (AUC) for discrimination and calibration plots and Brier score for overall accuracy.
Main Results:
- The BMC2 score demonstrated superior discrimination for in-hospital mortality prediction compared to PROGRESS-CTO (AUC 0.96 vs. 0.71, p<0.001).
- BMC2 showed excellent predictive accuracy for acute kidney injury (AUC 0.93), dialysis (0.91), and stroke (0.84).
- PROGRESS-CTO showed moderate accuracy for periprocedural myocardial infarction, pericardiocentesis, coronary perforation, and MACCE. Calibration was better with PROGRESS-CTO, but both models had low overall prediction error.
Conclusions:
- The BMC2 score is a more effective tool for predicting in-hospital mortality in CTO-PCI procedures.
- BMC2 is a powerful, data-intensive, patient-focused risk model, while PROGRESS-CTO is a simpler, procedure-oriented model.
- The findings suggest that BMC2 should be prioritized for mortality risk assessment in CTO-PCI, with PROGRESS-CTO serving as a complementary tool.
Background:
Chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO-PCI) is a high-risk procedure where reliable risk prediction is essential. We compared the performance of 2 risk models (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium [BMC2] and Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention [PROGRESS-CTO]) for the prediction of in-hospital outcomes after CTO-PCI.
Methods:
We retrospectively analysed 1,157 CTO-PCI procedures performed at a single tertiary center between 2019 and 2023. Primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) method and calibration with calibration plots. Model accuracy was further quantified by the Brier score.
Results:
Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) occurred in 3.0% (n = 35), and mortality in 1.0% (n = 11). The BMC2 score outperformed PROGRESS-CTO for mortality prediction (AUC 0.96 vs 0.71; P < .001). BMC2 achieved excellent prediction for acute kidney injury (AUC 0.93), dialysis (0.91), and stroke (0.84), while PROGRESS-CTO provided moderate accuracy for periprocedural myocardial infarction, pericardiocentesis (both AUC 0.71), coronary perforation (AUC 0.72) and MACCE (AUC 0.62). Calibration plots indicated better calibration for the PROGRESS-CTO model, while both models showed low overall prediction error (Brier score).
Conclusions:
In CTO-PCI, BMC2 offers superior performance for in-hospital mortality prediction. Their complementary features suggest BMC2 as a powerful, data-demanding, and patient-focused tool, while PROGRESS-CTO as an easy-to-calculate, procedure-oriented model.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care

