Chronic total occlusion revascularization: A complex piece to "complete" the puzzle

Table 1 Chronic total occlusion study results and clinical outcomes according to hierarchical levels of evidence-based medicine: Registries, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials

Studies		Patients (n)	CTO-PCI success	Follow-up	PCI success vs PCI failure
					MACE	Death
Registries	OPEN-CTO 2020 (12) (Hybrid approach)	1000	90%	1 yr	3.4% vs 3.7%	0.9% vs 0%
	EXPERT-CTO 2019 (2) (New generation DES)	250	96.4%	1 yr	18.5% vs 24.4%	NR
	Valenti et al 2019 (3) (Elderly ≥ 75 yr)	460	72%	5 yr	9.6% vs 17%	84% ± 3% vs 72% ± 6%
	Sudhakar et al 2014 (4)	13443	70.6%	2.65 yr	NR	HR 0.72, 95%CI: 0.62-0.83
Metanalyses	Christakopoulos et al 2015 (5)	28486	71%	3.11 yr	29.1%	6.4% vs 9.5%
	Hoebers et al 2015 (6)	15459	71.7%	1-10 yr	NR	10.4% vs 14.9%
	Chenmin et al 2021 (7) (Elderly ≥ 75 yr)	4693	70.4%-78.36%	20 mo-5 yr	16.8% vs 28.9%	HR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.34-0.77
RCTs	DECISION CTO 2019 (8)	834	90.6%	4 yr	22.3% vs 22.4%	3.6% vs 5.3%
	EURO CTO 2018 (9)	396	86.6%	1 yr	5.2% vs 6.7%	0.8% vs 0%

RCT: Randomised controlled trial; CTO: Chronic total occlusion; PCI: Percutaneous coronary intervention; MACE: Major adverse cardiovascular events; DES: Drug-eluting stents; NR: Not reported.