Comparison of the influence of CTO PCI versus no-CTO PCI on LVEF and LVEDV at 4 months in the GOODCOLL and POORCOLL groups
| GOODCOLL | POORCOLL | |||||
| CTO PCI (n=72) | No-CTO PCI (n=79) | P values | CTO PCI (n=63) | No-CTO PCI (n=66) | P values | |
| LVEF | 46.9 (37.6–55.1) | 46.7 (39.4–55.4) | 0.803 | 43.4 (32.7–49.7) | 43.3 (35.8–51.0) | 0.618 |
| LVEDV | 202 (168–245) | 212 (164–248) | 0.836 | 218 (177–253) | 211 (170–256) | 0.280 |
| Scar | N=56 | N=64 | N=50 | N=38 | ||
| Total | 5.3 (3.1–8.9) | 5.4 (2.8–10.4) | 0.941 | 7.0 (3.7–14.7) | 5.4 (3.2–9.9) | 0.398 |
| Culprit | 4.2 (2.5–7.1) | 4.2 (2.0–7.8) | 0.817 | 6.1 (3.0–11.9) | 4.9 (2.2–7.9) | 0.256 |
| CTO | 0.4 (0.0–2.2) | 0.3 (0.0–1.5) | 0.405 | 0.5 (0.1–1.8) | 0.4 (0–1.6) | 0.393 |
CTO, coronary chronic total occlusion; GOODCOLL, well-developed collaterals to the CTO; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume (mL); LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction (%); PCI, percutaneouscoronary intervention; POORCOLL, poorlydeveloped collaterals to the CTO.