Meta-analysis Comparing Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus no Intervention in Patients with Chronic Total Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has substantially improved due to increasing operator experience and advancements in equipment, techniques, and management algorithms. However, the overall benefit of CTO PCI remains controversial, particularly since only a few randomized trials have been reported to date. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of CTO PCI. The study outcomes were the occurrence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, or freedom from angina at the longest documented follow-up period. Results: In five trials including 1790 patients, the mean age was 63 ± 10 years, 17% were female, with a median follow-up of 2.9 years. The procedural success rate ranged from 73% to 97% and the right coronary artery was the most involved artery (52%). There was no significant difference between CTO PCI and no intervention regarding all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49–2.47, P = 0.82), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.81–1.77, P = 0.36), repeat revascularization (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40–1.14, P = 0.14), or stroke (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.26–1.36, P = 0.22). In two trials including 686 patients, significantly more patients were free of angina at 1 year, defined as the Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris Grade 0, in the CTO PCI group compared to the no intervention group (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.35–0.76, P < 0.001). Meta-regression analyses based on various trial-level covariates (gender, diabetes, previous myocardial infarction, PCI or coronary artery bypass graft, SYNTAX or J-CTO scores, and CTO-related artery percentages) did not suggest any statistically significant relationships. Conclusions: CTO PCI appears to have a similar efficacy profile compared to no intervention at long-term follow-up, but with a significant improvement of angina favoring PCI-treated patients. Further adequately powered and long-term trials are required to identify the best management strategy for patients with coronary CTO.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".