ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
The impact of successful chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention on clinical outcomes: a tertiary single-center analysis.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complex CTO Revascularization in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Illustrative Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes of drug-coated balloons vs. drug-eluting stents in coronary chronic total occlusion angioplasty: the SPARTAN-CTO study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- The Role of Myocardial Revascularization in Ischemic Heart Failure in the Era of Modern Optimal Medical Therapy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The benefit of chronic total occlusion (CTO)-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial because of a lack of high-quality evidence. We aim to evaluate the impact of CTO-PCI on symptoms, quality of life and mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single center study of patients with CTO-PCI in a tertiary center in Austria. The study outcomes were Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina score, quality of life measured by Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), and death at median follow up for patients with successful vs. failed CTO-PCI. Results: A total of 300 patients underwent CTO-PCI for coronary artery disease, of which 252 (84%) were technically successful with median follow up of 3.4 years. There were no significant differences in in-hospital or all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular event, or stent-related complications between the groups of failed and successful CTO-PCI. Among patients with successful CTO-PCI there was a significant improvement in CCS score, which was not found for the group with failed CTO-PCI. Successful reopening was associated with significant benefits of the SAQ domains of angina with stressful activity [3.7 ± 0.9 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5, Conclusion: While there was no significant difference in mortality, successful CTO-PCI was associated with greater reduction in angina and the use of nitrates compared to unsuccessful CTO-PCI.
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.