Percutaneous coronary intervention provided better long term results than optimal medical therapy alone in patients with chronic total occlusion: A meta-analysis

Studies comparing the outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) along with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO) are limited by observational design, variable follow-up period, diverse clinical outcomes, high drop-out and cross-over rates. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis of published data of observational as well as randomized studies comparing long term outcomes of PCI+OMT versus OMT alone. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed. 15 studies meeting criteria were included in the meta-analysis. The New-castle Ottawa scale was used to appraise the overall quality of the studies. Random-effects model with inverse variance method was undertaken. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) which comprises of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and un-planned revascularization were significantly lower in the PCI+OMT group (RR:0.76; 95% CI:0.61 to 0.95; P=<0.00001; I2 = 85%). All-cause mortality and cardiac death were significantly lower in the PCI+OMT group (P=<0.00001 in both). Myocardial infarction and stroke rates were lower in the PCI+OMT group, however they did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.24, P = 0.15 respectively). Unplanned revascularizations (of any vessel) were also similar in both the groups (P = 0.78, I2 = 88%). PCI of CTO is rewarded with better long term outcome, in terms of MACE, all-cause mortality and cardiac death with similar rates of un-planned revascularization.