Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Optimal Medical Therapy in Patients with Chronic Total Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis.

Chronic total occlusion (CTO) is a prevalent finding in patients with coronary artery disease and is associated with increased mortality. Prior reports on the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) were controversial. Following the emergence of recently published new evidence, a meta-analysis is warranted. The current meta-analysis assessed the effects of PCI compared to OMT in the treatment of CTO. A structured literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies of interventions were eligible. The primary outcome was an accumulated composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel/lesion revascularization events. Thirty-two studies reporting on 11260 patients were included. Of these, 5712 (50.7%) were assigned to the PCI and 5548 (49.3%) were allocated to the OMT group. The primary outcome occurred in 14.6% of the PCI and 20.1% of the OMT group (12 trials, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88, = 0.005, I = 67%). Subgrouping demonstrated a consistent reduction in the primary outcome for the PCI group in RCTs (six trials, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99, = 0.05). The primary outcome reduction was irrespective of the study design, and it was replicable in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Advantages in other outcomes were rather related to statistical pooling effects and dominated by observational data. CTO-PCI was associated with improved patient-oriented primary outcome compared to OMT in a study-level meta-analysis. This composite outcome effect was mainly driven by target vessel treatment, but a significant reduction in mortality and myocardial infarction was observed, irrespectively. These findings have hypothesis-generating implications. Future RCTs with adequate statistical power are eagerly awaited.