Why the study?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention improve clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness in patients with coronary chronic total occlusion?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention improve clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness in patients with coronary chronic total occlusion?
This review examines the procedural safety, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions.
Percutaneous revascularisation of a coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) remains one of the technical frontiers of interventional cardiology. CTOs are common, and yet intervention is only attempted in 10 % of cases. CTO procedures are perceived to be technically challenging, lengthy, associated with significant risk and have only limited data to support the practise. Recent technical advances have dramatically increased the success rate, shortened procedural time and improved clinical outcomes. The aim of this article is to critically examine the data that supports CTO intervention, including specifically an appraisal of procedural safety, benefit and overall cost effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rawlins et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: