This paper reports prospective assessment of pre- and postoperative functional status (measured with the by now familiar SF-36 health status survey) in a consecutive series of patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Although the study is marred by the fact that only half of the patients completed both surveys, the authors were able to identify improvements in both physical and mental functions after operations for myocardial ischemia. In addition, the data highlighted several patient factors that affected the likelihood that improvement would be realized. Negative correlates of improvement in physical status included obesity, diabetes with sequelae, chronic lung disease, peripheral vascular disease, and baseline physical function. Baseline mental function and lung disease were negative correlates, and, interestingly, older age was a positive correlate of postoperative improvement in mental function.This is an important paper. First, it provides data to counter the recent contention, much publicized in the lay press, that cardiac operations for myocardial revascularization inevitably lead to, and perhaps cause, a decline in physical and especially cognitive performance. This paper bolster the surgeon’s objective of using sophisticated science and meticulously developed art to help restore patients afflicted by the scourge of atherosclerosis to more functional and productive life. Second, this report provides evidence that certain patient characteristics may operate independently of the quality of the operation to limit the potential rehabilitative benefit of coronary artery bypass surgery.Finally, the assessment of functional improvement, especially after elective coronary bypass surgery, is critical in the current environment of cost containment and competing, nonsurgical revascularization strategies. This paper provides another means to evaluate those therapies as well. While the authors have identified the limitations of their study accurately, their data are provocative. This type of analysis might well be a useful additional approach in future, prospective, comparative assessments of surgical and catheter-based myocardial revascularization. This paper reports prospective assessment of pre- and postoperative functional status (measured with the by now familiar SF-36 health status survey) in a consecutive series of patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Although the study is marred by the fact that only half of the patients completed both surveys, the authors were able to identify improvements in both physical and mental functions after operations for myocardial ischemia. In addition, the data highlighted several patient factors that affected the likelihood that improvement would be realized. Negative correlates of improvement in physical status included obesity, diabetes with sequelae, chronic lung disease, peripheral vascular disease, and baseline physical function. Baseline mental function and lung disease were negative correlates, and, interestingly, older age was a positive correlate of postoperative improvement in mental function. This is an important paper. First, it provides data to counter the recent contention, much publicized in the lay press, that cardiac operations for myocardial revascularization inevitably lead to, and perhaps cause, a decline in physical and especially cognitive performance. This paper bolster the surgeon’s objective of using sophisticated science and meticulously developed art to help restore patients afflicted by the scourge of atherosclerosis to more functional and productive life. Second, this report provides evidence that certain patient characteristics may operate independently of the quality of the operation to limit the potential rehabilitative benefit of coronary artery bypass surgery. Finally, the assessment of functional improvement, especially after elective coronary bypass surgery, is critical in the current environment of cost containment and competing, nonsurgical revascularization strategies. This paper provides another means to evaluate those therapies as well. While the authors have identified the limitations of their study accurately, their data are provocative. This type of analysis might well be a useful additional approach in future, prospective, comparative assessments of surgical and catheter-based myocardial revascularization.