Procedural outcomes and long-term survival among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of a chronic total occlusion in native coronary arteries: A 20-year experience

Objectives Thc study compared procedural outcomes and long-term survival for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a chronic total coronary artery occlusion (CTO) with a matched non-CTO cohort to determine whether successful PCI of a CTO is associated with improved survival. Background Percutaneous coronary intervention of a CTO is a common occurrence, and the long-term survival for patients with successful PCI of a CTO has not been clearly defined. Methods Between June 1980 and December-1999, a total of 2,007 consecutive patients underwent PCI for a CTO. Utilizing propensity scoring methods, a matched non-CTO cohort of 2,007 patients was identified and compared to the CTO group. The cohorts were stratified into successful and failed procedures. Results The in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was 3.8% in the CTO cohort. Technical success has improved over the last 10 years (overall 74.4%, slope 1.0%/yr, p = 0.02, R-2 = 49.9%) as did procedural success (overall 69.9%, slope 1.2%/yr, p = 0.02, R-2 = 51.5%) without a concomitant increase in in-hospital MACE rates (slope 0.1%/yr, p = 0.7). There was a distinct 10-year survival advantage for successful CTO treatment compared with failed CTO treatment (73.5% vs. 65.1%, p = 0.001). The CTO versus non-CTO 10-year survival was the same (71.2% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.9). Diabetics in the CTO cohort had a lower 10-year survival compared with nondiabetics (58.3% vs. 74.3%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions These data represent follow-up of the largest reported series of patients undergoing PCI for a CTO. The 10-year survival rates for matched non-CTO and the CTO cohorts were similar. Success rates have continued to improve without an accompanying increase in MACE rates. A successfully revascularized CTO confers a significant 10-year survival advantage compared with failed revascularization. (J Am Loll Cardiol 2001;38:409-14) (C) 2001 by the American College of Cardiology.