Published online Feb 16, 2015. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i2.163
Peer-review started: August 8, 2014
First decision: October 14, 2014
Revised: October 25, 2014
Accepted: November 19, 2014
Article in press: November 19, 2014
Published online: February 16, 2015
Processing time: 183 Days and 16.3 Hours
Patients with coronary artery disease vary widely in terms of prognosis, which is mainly dependent on ventricular function. In relation to the major outcomes of death and myocardial infarction, it is not clear in the literature if an invasive strategy of myocardial revascularization is superior to a conservative strategy of optimized medical therapy. Moreover, with the exception of patients with left main coronary disease, this similarity in prognosis also occurs in different subgroups of patients.
Core tip: Despite the evolution of myocardial revacul-arization techniques, the mainstay of treatment of stable coronary artery disease is optimal medical therapy. With the better understanding of the mechanisms underlying atherosclerosis, medical therapy develops and shows similar results in terms of survival and freedom from myocardial infarction compared to coronary interventions. Moreover, clinical trials have also demonstrated similar results between conservative and invasive strategies in various subgroups of patients, previously found to benefit from coronary interventions. In this review article, the authors discuss the results from main trials on specific groups of coronary artery disease patients which compared conservative and invasive strategies.