Key result
This article reviews the current evidence base, indications, and strategies for percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions.
Why the study?
Does percutaneous revascularization improve outcomes in patients with coronary chronic total occlusion?
Does percutaneous revascularization improve outcomes in patients with coronary chronic total occlusion?
This review summarizes the current evidence base and controversies surrounding percutaneous revascularization for coronary chronic total occlusions.
Evidence for CTO PCI remains inconclusive; leaves open optimal patient selection and outcome benefits.
Coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) accounts for an increasing proportion of referrals for percutaneous revascularization. In contrast to acute myocardial infarction, the presence of collaterals and the slow progression of occlusion mandate different considerations when deciding upon revascularization strategies. The identification and referral of CTO lesions continues to grow as the technical success of percutaneous revascularization improves and the evidence base supporting their treatment matures. Preprocedural case examination and strategy planning are becoming routine in the management of CTOs. However, there remains controversy over the indications for recanalizing CTOs and, in particular, the further management of those patients with unsuccessful CTO revascularization attempts. This article will review the evidence for treating CTOs percutaneously.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Douglas et al. (2013) conducted a review in Coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO). Percutaneous revascularization was evaluated. This article reviews the current evidence base, indications, and strategies for percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: