Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are the two dominant revascularisation strategies for obstructive coronary artery disease, yet their relative roles continue to shift because they address coronary pathophysiology differently with ever-evolving techniques. PCI has advanced through iterative improvements, including balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents, and drug-eluting stents, with contemporary outcomes increasingly driven by procedural optimisation using intracoronary imaging and physiology-guided lesion selection rather than device category alone. CABG has progressed through perioperative management, improvements in operative safety, and, critically, conduit durability. Recognition of progressive saphenous vein graft failure has underpinned a conduit-optimisation era in which the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery remains the gold standard. Further, broader arterial grafting (including radial artery use, multiple arterial grafting, and selected total-arterial strategies) has been increasingly applied, albeit with deliverability and competing-risk constraints highlighted in randomised evidence. This perspective review reframes the CABG versus PCI comparison not as a binary contest, but as a context-dependent assessment in which the relative value of each strategy depends on the specific technologies, techniques, and conduits available at the time of comparison. We summarise comparative effectiveness where evidence is most consistent and where it remains sensitive to anatomy, comorbidity, and endpoint definitions. In diabetes with multivessel disease, trial data favour CABG for long-term survival and clinical outcomes despite higher stroke risk. In left main disease, outcomes depend on lesion pattern and overall complexity, with trial-era stent technology and composite endpoint definitions influencing conclusions. In ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction, a long-term survival benefit is established for CABG added to medical therapy, while multi-vessel PCI has not demonstrated comparable prognostic modification in contemporary data. We then examine hybrid coronary revascularisation as territory-specific allocation, highlighting its physiological rationale, program dependence, and limited, adequately powered randomised evidence. Finally, we outline how artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics may accelerate a precision revascularisation paradigm by standardising lesion assessment, supporting procedural planning, improving procedural reproducibility, and enabling more patient-specific selection among PCI, contemporary CABG with optimised conduits, and hybrid pathways.
Ren et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: