Dalen JE, et al. The epidemic of the 20(th) century: coronary heart disease. Am J Med. 2014;127(9):807–12.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Johnson NB, et al. CDC National Health Report: leading causes of morbidity and mortality and associated behavioral risk and protective factors–United States, 2005–2013. MMWR Suppl. 2014;63(4):3–27.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Maron DJ, et al. Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(15):1395–407.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Head SJ, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018;391(10124):939–48.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Park SJ, et al. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1204–12.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Serruys PW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961–72.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Qiao X, et al. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Second-and First-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Chronic Total Occlusion Lesion: A Meta-Analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8: 598046.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lawton JS, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(3):e4–17.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Neumann FJ, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87–165.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Holm NR, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):191–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Stone GW, et al. Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2223–35.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Park DW, et al. Ten-Year Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Disease: Extended Follow-Up of the PRECOMBAT Trial. Circulation. 2020;141(18):1437–46.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Morice M-C, et al. Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Left Main Disease Treated With Either Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial. Circulation. 2014;129(23):2388–94.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Thygesen K, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(16):1581–98.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sabatine MS, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet. 2021;398(10318):2247–57.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Byrne RA, et al. 2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(41):4310–20.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Doenst T, et al. PCI and CABG for Treating Stable Coronary Artery Disease: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(8):964–76.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gaudino M, Farkouh ME, Stone GW. Left main revascularization: an evidence-based reconciliation. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(25):2421–4 (This article is important because it comprehensively summarizes many of the trials assessing the suitability of CABG vs. PCI mentioned in our review. The authors note that CABG and PCI should not be viewed competitively, but rather as complementary. Of course, there are clinical, anatomical, or other reasons to strongly favour one intervention over the other. However, for some patients, long-term differences in major outcomes (death, stroke, and large MI) and quality of life after PCI and CABG are small, and thus the early vs. late trade-offs of the procedures should inform clinical decision-making via the guidance of a multidisciplinary Heart team.).

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kalra SS, Shanahan CM. Vascular calcification and hypertension: cause and effect. Ann Med. 2012;44(Suppl 1):S85-92.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Guedeney P, et al. Coronary Calcification and Long-Term Outcomes According to Drug-Eluting Stent Generation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(12):1417–28.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Baber U. Coronary Artery Calcification and Mortality After Revascularization: Look Beyond the Heart. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(2):205–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Thuijs D, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10206):1325–34.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Dangas GD, et al. Long-term outcome of PCI versus CABG in insulin and non-insulin-treated diabetic patients: results from the FREEDOM trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(12):1189–97.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ertelt K, et al. Impact of the severity of coronary artery calcification on clinical events in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(11):1730–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kawashima H, et al. 10-Year All-Cause Mortality Following Percutaneous or Surgical Revascularization in Patients With Heavy Calcification. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(2):193–204 (Findings from this study are particularly important because it found that at 10 years post-revascularization, the presence of a heavily calcified coronary lesion was an independent predictor of mortality, with a similar prognosis following PCI or CABG. This paper demonstrated that PCI was comparable to CABG for the treatment of heavily calcified lesions.).

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Aziz O, et al. Meta-analysis of minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass versus percutaneous revascularisation for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery. BMJ. 2007;334(7594):617.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Goy JJ, et al. 10-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing bare-metal stenting with internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis the SIMA (Stenting versus Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(10):815–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kapoor JR, et al. Isolated disease of the proximal left anterior descending artery comparing the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1(5):483–91.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Thiele H, et al. Randomized comparison of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery versus sirolimus-eluting stenting in isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(25):2324–31.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Takahashi K, et al. Redevelopment and validation of the SYNTAX score II to individualise decision making between percutaneous and surgical revascularisation in patients with complex coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAXES trial with external cohort validation. Lancet. 2020;396(10260):1399–412.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chen J, et al. Validation of the Ability of SYNTAX and Clinical SYNTAX Scores to Predict Adverse Cardiovascular Events After Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Angiology. 2016;67(9):820–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yang H, Zhang L, Xu CH. Use of the SYNTAX Score II to predict mortality in interventional cardiology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(2): e14043.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Briceno N, et al. Ischaemic cardiomyopathy: pathophysiology, assessment and the role of revascularisation. Heart. 2016;102(5):397–406.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Goo