Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Chronic Total Occlusion

Abstract Objectives Mechanisms of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) differ as CABG provides surgical collateralization and may prolong life by preventing future myocardial infarctions (MIs). However, evidence for CABG in patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) has not been fully elucidated and the impact of PCI is discussed controversially. Methods We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes in patients with/without multivessel disease undergoing CABG or PCI for CTO. The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality (≥5 years). Secondary outcomes were MIs, repeat revascularization, cardiac mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke, as well as short-term mortality (30 days/in-hospital) and stroke. A pooled Kaplan–Meier survival curve after reconstruction analysis was generated. Random-effects models were used. Results Six studies totaling 12,504 patients were included. In the pooled Kaplan–Meier analysis, PCI showed a significantly higher risk of death in the follow-up compared with CABG (hazard ratio HR: 2.12, 95% confidence interval CI: 1.88–2.38, p < 0.01). During the observation period, PCI was also associated with higher rates of MI (odds ratio OR: 2.86, 95% CI: 1.82–4.48, p < 0.01) and more repeat revascularization (OR: 4.88, 95% CI: 1.99–11.91, p = 0.0005). The other outcomes did not show significant differences. Conclusion CABG is associated with superior survival to PCI over time in patients with CTO who are eligible for both PCI and CABG. This survival advantage is associated with fewer events of MI and repeat revascularization.