ArticleAsiaIntervention2026
Intravascular lithotripsy for coronary chronic total occlusion: a meta-analysis of procedural and clinical outcomes.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intravascular lithotripsy in chronic total occlusion PCI: expanding the calcium modification armamentarium with cautious optimism.AsiaIntervention · 2026Article
- Intravascular lithotripsy for coronary chronic total occlusion: a meta-analysis of procedural and clinical outcomes.AsiaIntervention · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A significant gap exists within current guidelines for the treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO), which has yielded poor prognostic outcomes. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has emerged as a novel strategy implemented during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but evidence to support its use is limited. Aims: We aimed to review the outcomes of IVL for CTO PCI. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest were searched for studies implementing IVL for CTO PCI. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and JBI tools. An inverse variance, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted in RStudio version 2023.03.0+386 yielding pooled proportions and means along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where applicable, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Five studies with 611 patients were included. Technical success was achieved in 97% (95% CI: 94-100%; I²=18%) of cases. Procedural success was achieved in 94% (95% CI: 90-97%; I²=27%), and the subgroup with a Japanese CTO score >2.8 yielded a significantly higher success rate (95% [95% CI: 93-97%] vs 91% [95% CI: 85-96%]; p=0.04). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred in 3% (95% CI: 2-5%; I²=0%) of cases within the in-hospital follow-up subgroup and in 6% (95% CI: 1-12%; I²=0%) of cases within the discharge follow-up subgroup. Mortality occurred in 1% (95% CI: 0-4%; I²=55%) of cases within the in-hospital subgroup and 0% (95% CI: 0-52%) of cases within the discharge subgroup. Perforation as a complication occurred in 5% (95% CI: 1-9%; I²=54%) of cases. The pooled mean procedural time was 122.94 minutes (95% CI: 102.24-143.64 minutes; I²=90%), and the mean contrast volume used was 154 mL (95% CI: 140.84-167.16 mL; I²=69%). Conclusions: IVL yielded high technical and procedural success, and comparable procedural times and contrast volume in CTO PCI. MACE, mortality, and perforation occurred in small proportions of patients. Further studies are needed to strengthen evidence and explore which subtype of CTO would benefit most from IVL.
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.