Comparison of Complete Versus Incomplete Percutaneous Revascularization in Patients With Chronic Total Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The optimal extent of revascularization in patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains debated. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of complete versus incomplete revascularization in CTO patients. A systematic search of EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science was conducted up to July 6, 2024. Studies reporting outcomes in CTO patients undergoing PCI with complete or incomplete revascularization were included. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Eight studies with a total of 7,067 patients (4,854 complete and 2,213 incomplete revascularization) were included. Complete revascularization was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.77), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37-0.78), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.29-0.75) compared to incomplete revascularization. There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction between the two groups (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.20-1.80). In patients with CTO undergoing PCI, complete revascularization is associated with significantly better clinical outcomes, including lower risks of MACE, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality, compared to incomplete revascularization. These findings suggest that achieving complete revascularization should be prioritized when feasible in CTO patients.