Why the study?
Does revascularization improve outcomes compared to optimal medical therapy in patients with chronic stable angina?
Does revascularization improve outcomes compared to optimal medical therapy in patients with chronic stable angina?
This review discusses the ongoing debate regarding the superiority of revascularization versus optimal medical therapy as first-line treatment for chronic stable angina.
Debate on revascularization versus optimal medical therapy for stable angina persists; leaves open need for definitive RCTs.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a major global public health problem in 21st century, and it affects as many as 54 million people globally.1 The goals of CAD treatment have several objectives which include relief of symptoms, inhibition of disease progression, prevention of future cardiac events, such as myocardial infarction (MI) and improved survival.2 There is always debate among medical treatment and revascularization which one is superior to each other. Here, we will discuss and try to review in a critical manner the role of revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] versus coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) in the management of chronic stable angina in comparison to modern optimal medical therapy (OMT) in the view of recent studies
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alok Kumar Singh (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: