Meta-analysis Comparing Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus No Intervention in Patients with Chronic Total Occlusion

Methods: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of CTO PCI. The study outcomes were the occurrence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, or freedom from angina at the longest documented follow-up period.

Results: In five trials including 1790 patients, the mean age was 63 ± 10 years, 17% were female, with a median follow-up of 2.9 years. The procedural success rate ranged from 73% to 97% and the right coronary artery was the most involved artery (52%). There was no significant difference between CTO PCI and no intervention regarding all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-2.47, = 0.82), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.81-1.77, = 0.36), repeat revascularization (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40-1.14, = 0.14), or stroke (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.26-1.36, = 0.22). In two trials including 686 patients, significantly more patients were free of angina at 1 year, defined as the Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris Grade 0, in the CTO PCI group compared to the no intervention group (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.35-0.76, < 0.001). Meta-regression analyses based on various trial-level covariates (gender, diabetes, previous myocardial infarction, PCI or coronary artery bypass graft, SYNTAX or J-CTO scores, and CTO-related artery percentages) did not suggest any statistically significant relationships.

Conclusions: CTO PCI appears to have a similar efficacy profile compared to no intervention at long-term follow-up, but with a significant improvement of angina favoring PCI-treated patients. Further adequately powered and long-term trials are required to identify the best management strategy for patients with coronary CTO.