Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for patients with chronic total occlusion: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Background: It was under debate whether chronic total occlusion (CTO) patients could benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to compare clinical outcomes of PCI and optimal medical therapy (OMT) in these patients.

Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies enrolling patients with CTO who accepted PCI or OMT. The meta-analysis was performed by using a random-effect model. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed, including patients after propensity-matching and patients with CTO in infarct-related artery (IRA), respectively.

Results: We identified 5 studies enrolling 4,761 participants in this meta-analysis. In the main analysis, when compared with OMT, PCI was associated with significant improvement in all-cause death [risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% CI: 0.35-0.48], cardiac death (RR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.35-0.55) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.97). But there were no differences in myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. The results of the propensity-matched subgroup were somewhat consistent with those of the main analysis (all-cause death: RR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.26-0.89; MI: RR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32-0.77; and MACE: RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.33-1.18). In IRA subgroup, PCI reduced risks of mortality (all-cause death: RR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.34-0.49; cardiac death: RR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.35-0.56) and MACE (RR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.46-1.10). But no difference was observed in MI.

Conclusions: PCI was associated with improved survival and reduced MACE relative to OMT.