SynthesisIndian heart journal
Percutaneous coronary intervention provided better long term results than optimal medical therapy alone in patients with chronic total occlusion: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complete vs. incomplete percutaneous revascularization in patients with chronic total coronary artery occlusion.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Is it the Time to Move Towards Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? The Pros and Cons.Current cardiology reviews · 2023Review
- Long-Term Predictors of Hospitalized Reinfarction after an Incident Acute Myocardial Infarction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Both surgical and percutaneous revascularization improve prognosis in patients with a coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) irrespective of collateral robustness.Heart and vessels · 2021Article
- Procedural Success Prediction Scoring Systems Used in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Chronic Total Occlusions: A Systematic Evaluation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsStudies 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. METHODS AND
resultsPubMed, 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; I
conclusionPCI 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.