Key result
Percutaneous coronary intervention achieved better improvement in the SAQ summary score compared to optimal medical therapy in patients with a single chronic total occlusion.
Why the study?
The benefit of PCI for chronic total coronary occlusions to improve symptoms and quality of life compared with optimal medical therapy remains uncertain due to scarce randomized trial data.
Does PCI improve quality of life and angina frequency compared to OMT in patients with a single CTO and no concomitant coronary lesions?
RCT (n=518)
1:1 in DECISION and 2:1 in EUROCTO
Yes
Does PCI improve quality of life and angina frequency compared to OMT in patients with a single CTO and no concomitant coronary lesions?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
In patients with a single CTO and no other significant lesions, PCI provides superior improvement in quality of life and angina frequency compared to optimal medical therapy without excess clinical harm.
BACKGROUND: The benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total coronary occlusions (CTOs) to improve clinical symptoms and quality of life (QoL) as compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT) is still under debate because of the scarcity of available randomized trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effect of PCI vs OMT in patients with a CTO and no concomitant coronary lesions in a post-hoc pooled analysis of 2 RCTs. METHODS: A total of 518 patients with a single CTO and no other significant coronary lesion were extracted from 2 RCTs, EUROCTO and DECISION-CTO, which had compared PCI vs OMT. Randomization to PCI or OMT was 1:1 in DECISION and 2:1 in EUROCTO. The clinical status was assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at baseline and after 12 months, and clinical events were monitored for 3 years. RESULTS: PCI was successful in 92.2%. On an intention-to-treat analysis, PCI appeared to be superior to OMT for the change of angina frequency scores between baseline and follow-up (12.2 vs 8.6; P = 0.009), QoL (19.5 vs 11.3; P < 0.001), and the SAQ summary score (13.8 vs 8.5; P < 0.001). For physical limitation, the difference was just at the level of the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests (P = 0.01). There was a wide variability of changes in SAQ scores. For QoL, the major determinant for a significant improvement was a low baseline score and the assignment to PCI, whereas gender, diabetes, or lesion complexity had no influence. During a mean follow-up of 3.1 years, the clinical endpoints of cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction were similar in both groups (OMT vs PCI: 2.7% vs 5.1%; P = 0.17). The rates of stroke or hospitalization for bleeding were similar, and only target lesion revascularizations were more frequent with OMT (18.8% vs 10.6%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis from 2 RCTs of patients with a single CTO and no significant concomitant lesion, PCI achieved better improvement in QoL, angina frequency, and the SAQ summary score than OMT with no signal of excess harm regarding clinical endpoints. (EUROCTO [Evaluate the Utilization of Revascularization or Optimal Medical Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Total Coronary Occlusions; NCT01760083] and DECISION-CTO [Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Versus Optimal Medical Treatment in Patients With Chronic Total Occlusion; NCT01078051]).
Werner et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Chronic total coronary occlusions (n=518). Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Optimal medical therapy was evaluated on Change in SAQ summary score between baseline and follow-up (p=<0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention achieved better improvement in the SAQ summary score compared to optimal medical therapy in patients with a single chronic total occlusion.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: