The clinical “significance” of percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO-PCI) has been evaluated. In the beginning, the effects on clinical endpoints were investigated by comparisons between cases of success and failure of CTO-PCI, which mostly demonstrated better long-term outcomes in the successful cases. Similarly, improvement of cardiac function or wall motion was proven by serial observational studies. Accordingly, several prospective randomized trials (RCTs), which should confirm such accumulated potential benefits, were recently conducted by comparison with studies of patients that had received optical medical therapy (OMT) alone. While they mostly demonstrated significant improvement of angina symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in the CTO-PCI group, they failed to prove a reduction of clinical events or improvement of left ventricle wall motion, compared with OMT. Concurrent guidelines or consensus documents emphasize that the principal indication for CTO-PCI is to improve symptoms. To determine strategy, the following must be discussed in each individual case: the probability of procedural success, the expectation of long-term patency, and an assessment of the balance between procedure-related complications and overall benefits. In essence, we believe the following facts to be the current sincere appraisal of CTO-PCI: (1) improvements of symptoms and QOL are established, but the others remain inconclusive, and; (2) their margins for improvement are narrowing and numbers of candidates are shrinking. Precision medicine or individualization may be the right directions to take, to enhance the potential of this treatment. This course of action demands discrimination of those candidates who will truly receive benefits from invasive treatment, and that still requires further clinical studies or actions.