Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Chronic Total Occlusion of Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction. Chronic total occlusion (CTO) of coronary arteries constitutes a substantial clinical challenge and has historically been managed through medical management and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, with the advancement in interventional technology, the success rate of percutaneous treatment has been significantly improved, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a primary mode of treatment for CTOs, demonstrating remarkable clinical efficacy. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate and contrast the outcomes of PCI and CABG in patients with CTO. Methods and Results. A systematic search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The primary endpoints evaluated in this meta-analysis were the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and the need for repeat revascularization. Nine studies, encompassing a total of 8,674 patients, were found to meet the criteria for inclusion and had a mean follow-up duration of 4.3 years. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that compared to CABG, PCI was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.92; $P$  = 0.003) and cardiac death (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31–0.96; $P$  < 0.05), but an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 1.96; 95%CI: 1.07–3.62; $P$  < 0.05) and repeat revascularization (RR: 7.13; 95% CI: 5.69–8.94; $P$  < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant difference in MACE (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.69–1.81; $P$  = 0.66) between the PCI and CABG groups. Conclusion. In the present meta-analysis comparing PCI and CABG in patients with chronic total occlusion of the coronary arteries, the results indicated that PCI was superior to CABG in reducing all-cause mortality and cardiac death but inferior in decreasing myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. There was no statistically significant difference in MACE between the two groups.