Abstract
Although revascularization has been one of the primary treatment options for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for about 50 years, the evidence base for its use is most robust in the area of acute coronary disease. By contrast, evidence - particularly from clinical trials - supporting the use of revascularization to improve clinical outcomes in stable CAD is in some important respects outdated in that it reflects therapies that predate both contemporary standards for optimal medical therapy and current revascularization techniques and technologies. Despite such limitations, these clinical trials still provide the foundation for many of the current guideline-based indications for coronary revascularization in patients with stable CAD. In this Review, we discuss the major factors underlying the clinical decision to perform revascularization in patients with stable CAD and examine the use and limitations of existing evidence on the choice for, and preferred methods of, revascularization, namely, CABG surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
