Abstract Introduction: The aim of this article is to study the efficacy and safety of cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) in the treatment of coronary heart disease (CAD). Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases and a manual search of conference papers and abstracts were performed until September 30, 2018. The studies using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 14.0 softwares were reviewed, and meta-analyses were performed on 13 indicators, such as a six-min walking distance test (6MWT), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) score, angina class (Canadian Cardiology Society [CCS]), etc. Results: A total of 26 articles were included. The total patient population was 855, of which 781 patients were treated with CSWT. Meta-analyses indicated that 6MWT (mean difference [MD] 75.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 49.03, 102.25, P<0.00001) and NYHA (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.92) in the CSWT group were comparable to those in the conventional revascularization group (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.92, -0.49, P<0.00001). SAQ (MD 10.75, 95% CI 6.66, 14.83, P<0.00001), CCS (MD -0.99, 95% CI -1.13, -0.84, P<0.00001), nitrate dosage (MD -1.84, 95% CI -2.77, -1.12, P<0.00001), LVEF (MD 3.77, 95% CI 2.17, 5.37, P<0.00001), and SSS (MD -4.29, 95% CI -5.61, -2.96, P<0.00001), SRS (MD -2.90, 95% CI -4.85, -0.95, P=0.004), and the exercise test (standard mean difference 0.57, 95% CI 0.12, 1.02, P=0.01) all showed significant differences. Conclusion: CSWT may offer beneficial effects to patients with CAD, but more large-scale clinical studies are needed to further verify its therapeutic effect.

Abstract Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and medical treatment (MT) in patients with chronic total occlusions (CTOs). Methods: We identified eligible observational studies published in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, PubMed, Excerpta Medica database, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and "Clinical trials" registration from 1999 to October 2018. Main outcome measures were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and myocardial infarction (MI). Results: There were eight observational studies including 6985 patients. Patients' mean age was 64.4 years. Mean follow-up time was 4.3 years. Comparing with MT (2958 patients), PCI (3157 patients) presented decreased all-cause mortality (odd ratio [OR]: 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.60; P<0.001), cardiac death (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.31-0.52; P<0.001), MACE (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.43-0.71; P<0.001), and MI (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.26-0.62; P<0.001). Comparing with MT, CABG (613 patients) presented lower all-cause mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69; P<0.001) and MACE (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.96; P=0.04), but not lower MI (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.03-1.54; P=0.13) and cardiac death (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.51-1.35). Comparing with CABG, PCI did not present decreased risk for those outcomes. Conclusions: PCI or CABG was associated with better clinical outcome in patients with CTO than MT. PCI is not better than CABG in decreasing mortality, MI, cardiac death, and MACE in coronary CTO patients.