The Role of Revascularization Versus Medical Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk for cardiovascular clinical events, adverse nonfatal outcomes, and death. There has been considerable improvement in the medical management of patients with T2DM in an attempt to alter the metabolic cascade that is triggered by insulin resistance. Recent trials have demonstrated that medical management of patients with diabetes mellitus and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is equivalent to revascularization in terms of morality benefit and rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, particularly in patients who do not have extensive CAD. Nonetheless, in those diabetic patients with additional high-risk features including left main disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), severe ischemia, or acute coronary syndrome, revascularization remains the best treatment option. Although the evidence still supports coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the standard of care for revascularization of diabetic patients with multivessel CAD and/or reduced LVEF, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) has resulted in at least partial closure of the gap in benefit between surgery and catheter-based intervention. Ongoing trials of diabetic patients with CAD randomized to PCI or CABG will help further elucidate the role of PCI with DES as a potential revascularization option for this patient population.     

The role of PCI and CABG in the management of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes

The role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is evolving. Data from clinical trials and observational studies are reviewed as well as current clinical practice guidelines. The importance of aggressive medical therapy to achieve recommended glycemic control targets, and management of usual risk factors in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) cannot be overemphasized regardless of the revascularization therapy selected. Patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk for CAD, which is the cause of death in the majority of patients. Outcomes following PCI and CABG are worse in patients with DM compared to those without DM. This calls for randomized trials and other studies focused on patients with DM.     

Integrated management of patients with diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease: PCI, CABG, and medical therapy

Modern coronary revascularization strategies are based on studies performed in the 1970s and 1980s that compared coronary artery bypass surgery with standard medical therapy available at the time. Studies comparing surgical and percutaneous revascularization followed, demonstrating similar long-term outcome among thousands of randomized patients. The largest of these trials, the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI), cast doubt on the generalizability of these findings to all subgroups, finding that patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel disease had worse long-term outcome with an initial strategy of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Indeed, patients with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, while the benefit of standard therapies in these patients is attenuated by the underlying metabolic abnormalities and significant comorbidities associated with the diabetic state. However, surgical and percutaneous revascularization techniques continue to evolve. Similarly, modern medical therapy is markedly superior to that available during these early studies, with demonstrable benefit in primary and secondary prevention of vascular events in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Ongoing trials will define the impact of current treatment modalities in this important and growing population.     

Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), whereas patients with end stage renal disease who are receiving hemodialysis represent a population at particularly high risk of developing cardiac ischemic events. Patients with CKD and acute coronary syndromes should be treated the same way as acute coronary syndromes patients without kidney dysfunction. The benefit of revascularization in patients with advanced kidney failure and CAD is unknown. Observational studies suggest that revascularization might confer a survival benefit compared with medical therapy alone. Little evidence from randomized trials exists regarding the effectiveness of revascularization of patients with CAD with either coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention vs medical therapy alone in patients with CKD. The risk of contrast-induced nephropathy is a major concern when percutaneous coronary intervention is performed in patients with CKD. Strict rehydration protocols and techniques to minimize contrast use are paramount to reduce this risk. Finally, in CKD patients who are awaiting kidney transplantation, a noninvasive or invasive CAD screening approach according to the cardiovascular risk profile should be used. Revascularization should be performed in candidates with critical lesions.     

Revascularization for coronary artery disease in diabetes mellitus: Angioplasty,stents and coronary artery bypass grafting

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are prone to a diffuse and rapidly progressive form of atherosclerosis, which increases their likelihood of requiring revascularization. However, the unique pathophysiology of atherosclerosis in patients with DM modifies the response to arterial injury, with profound clinical consequences for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Multiple studies have shown that DM is a strong risk factor for restenosis following successful balloon angioplasty or coronary stenting, with greater need for repeat revascularization and inferior clinical outcomes. Early data suggest that drug eluting stents reduce restenosis rates and the need for repeat revascularization irrespective of the diabetic state and with no significant reduction in hard clinical endpoints such as myocardial infarction and mortality. For many patients with 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease, there is little prognostic benefit from any intervention over optimal medical therapy. PCI with drug-eluting or bare metal stents is appropriate for patients who remain symptomatic with medical therapy. However, selection of the optimal myocardial revascularization strategy for patients with DM and multivessel coronary artery disease is crucial. Randomized trials comparing multivessel PCI with balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) consistently demonstrated the superiority of CABG in patients with treated DM. In the setting of diabetes CABG had greater survival, fewer recurrent infarctions or need for re-intervention. Limited data suggests that CABG is superior to multivessel PCI even when drug-eluting stents are used. Several ongoing randomized trials are evaluating the long-term comparative efficacy of PCI with drug-eluting stents and CABG in patients with DM. Only further study will continue to unravel the mechanisms at play and optimal therapy in the face of the profoundly virulent atherosclerotic potential that accompanies diabetes mellitus.     

Coronary artery disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus:Recent treatment strategies and future perspectives

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus(T2DM) are at a higher risk of developing coronary artery disease(CAD) than are non-T2 DM patients. Moreover, the clinical outcomes in CAD with T2 DM are poor despite improvements in medications and other interventions. Coronary artery bypass grafting is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention in treating multivessel coronary artery disease in diabetic patients. However, selecting a revascularization strategy depends not only on the lesion complexity but also on the patient’s medical history and comorbidities. Additionally, comprehensive risk management with medical and non-pharmacological therapies is important, as is confirmation regarding whether the risk-management strategies are being appropriately achieved. Furthermore, non-pharmacological interventions using exercise and diet during the earlier stages of glucose metabolism abnormalities, such as impaired glucose tolerance, might be beneficial in preventing the development or progression of T2 DM and in reducing the occurrence of cardiovascular events.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: clinical outcomes in multivessel coronary artery disease

Revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is superior to medical management in reducing symptoms and prolonging exercise duration in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Ten randomized trials have compared the outcomes in percutaneous and surgically treated patients with multivessel CAD. The purpose of this article was to summarize the results of those trials to make recommendations regarding appropriate revascularization strategy.     

Coronary angiography and angioplasty in diabetic patients

Screening, diagnosis and revascularization of coronary artery disease (CAD) in type 2 diabetes mellitus are major challenges for current clinical practice. Diagnostic (angiography) and therapeutic (angioplasty) cardiac catheterization are important resources for the clinical assessment and management of coronary atherosclerosis. Anatomic peculiarities of CAD in diabetics can be well characterized by angiography, associated or not by intravascular ultrasound. The worse outcome following coronary revascularization procedures, either angioplasty or surgery, in diabetic is one of the main fields of clinical research. In spite of controversies, about one quarter of angioplasty and one third of surgical revascularization procedures are performed in diabetics. Two ongoing, large, randomized, multicentric trials are investigating the best management of CAD in diabetics. The BARI 2D trial is randomizing asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients with CAD for either medical therapy or revascularization (angioplasty or surgery, according to the best clinical judgment). The FREEDOM trial is randomizing stable patients with multivessel CAD for either angioplasty with drug eluting stents or surgery, with or without extracorporeal circulation. While the evidences are not available, in order to decide on the best revascularization procedure for individual patients, medical practice has been balanced according to a number of variables. Conditions that favor angioplasty: short lesions, lesions in large vessels, absence of left anterior descending artery disease, previous coronary bypass surgery and high surgical risk due to co-morbidities. Conditions that favor surgery: long lesions, lesions in small vessels, presence of left anterior descending artery disease and need for associated valve surgery.     

Drug-eluting stents in patients with end-stage renal disease

Advanced coronary artery disease (CAD) and acute cardiac events are the most common causes of death in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, these patients are almost always excluded from trials examining innovations in medical and revascularization strategies for coronary disease. Extrapolation of trial conclusions regarding this high-risk patient population can be misleading because the risk-benefit ratios of various interventions are markedly different from those noted in patients with normal or mildly abnormal renal function. Because of their heightened risk, ESRD patients are frequently referred for coronary revascularization, despite the absence of solid evidence to demonstrate improved survival or reduction in clinical events. The introduction and utilization of drug-eluting stents (DES) resulted in dramatic reductions in target vessel revascularization, which now challenges the traditional algorithms of clinical decisions of percutaneous vs surgical revascularization. The utilization of DES may have out-paced the clinical trial evidence of efficacy and safety, but practicing cardiologists appear to have adopted this innovation, particularly for high-risk patients. Patients with ESRD are among several subgroups of patients in whom DES utilization appears promising, although there is no definitive randomized clinical trial evidence to support this practice. This article reviews the data available in the literature on prevalence of CAD and its impact on ESRD patients, the difficulties of referring these patients for coronary revascularization, and the potential role of adding DES to the available therapeutic options.     

Balancing benefit against risk in the choice of therapy for coronary artery disease. Lesson from prospective, randomized, clinical trials of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery

The ageing world population faces a coming pandemic of high-risk coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients with CAD have 3 therapeutic options, which are based on objective clinical outcome: medical therapy and risk factor modification (Medicine), and 2 forms of revascularization, coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). More than 50 large (>100 patients), multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trials (RCT) have compared these treatment options in terms of clinical benefits and patient risks. The randomized trials which demonstrated hard outcome (survival, myocardial infarction, stroke) benefits from statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and thienopyridines have all been completed subsequent to the publication of most Medicine versus revascularization trials. These medical therapies, plus aspirin, beta-blockers, and risk factor modification, should be made available to patients regardless of the decision to revascularize, or the decision by what means (CABG or PCI). This review integrates the information from these trials, comparing the clinical benefits against the risks inherent in the 3 therapeutic options. The results of our review show that: trials of medicine versus revascularization (either CABG or PCI) support the revascularization paradox, in that the patients at highest risk of adverse outcome, from myocardial ischemia, have a hard outcome benefit (survival, MI, or stroke) from revascularization. This paradox, first seen in the Medicine versus CABG trials of the 1970s, is evident in the trials comparing fibrinolysis and other medicines, with primary PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). The paradox is evident in the conservative versus invasive strategy trials of non-ST-elevation MI and unstable angina, where the benefit of revascularization occurs only in high-risk subsets. The paradox often results in sicker patients, who have more to gain from revascularization, being denied it because of the elevated perception of risk (comparable to a reperfusion paradox in ST-elevation MI, where patients most likely to benefit from thrombolytics are denied them because of the perception of risk). Trials that compared medicine with revascularization for the treatment of acute MI support the use of PCI as the preferred early stabilization strategy (90% of all PAMI trial patients). The majority of the PCI versus CABG trials enrolled populations that were at relatively low risk for ischemic clinical events. These trials demonstrated few hard outcome (survival, MI, or stroke) differences between CABG and PCI. On the basis of the results obtained the following conclusions may be drawn: medicines are the primary options for stable, low-risk CAD, and should be given to all CAD patients. Medically refractory is a useful high-risk marker of potential benefit from revascularization. CABG continues to be the complete revascularization option for patients with multivessel, multi-lesion CAD, in part because of its application to chronic occlusions. PCI is the acute stabilization method of choice for patients with on-going ischemia and acute MI, especially among patients with hemodynamic compromise, and/or major comorbidity.     

Percutaneous coronary interventions: guidelines, short- and long-term results, and comparison with coronary artery bypass grafting

An ever-growing number of patients are being referred for coronary revascularization in an attempt to reduce morbidity or to reduce mortality. Multiple randomized trials comparing percutaneous and surgical coronary revascularization have been performed. The decision to proceed with percutaneous or surgical revascularization should be based ona thorough understanding of the short- and long-term risks and benefits of each procedure in conjunction with the individual patient's coronary arterial anatomy and clinical risk profile.     

The evolving pattern of symptomatic coronary artery disease in the United States and Canada: baseline characteristics of the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive DruG Evaluation (COURAGE) trial

Major improvements in medical therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease (CAD) have emerged during the previous 2 decades, but no randomized trial in patients with stable CAD has been powered to compare these 2 strategies for the hard clinical end points of death or myocardial infarction (MI), and previous studies have not evaluated the effect of coronary stents and intensive medical therapy on cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Between 1999 and 2004, 2,287 patients with documented myocardial ischemia and angiographically confirmed CAD were randomized to the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive DruG Evaluation (COURAGE) trial, with a principal hypothesis that a strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention plus intensive, guideline-driven medical therapy would be superior to a strategy of intensive medical therapy alone. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or acute MI (time to first event) during a 2.5- to 7-year (median 5) follow-up. Baseline characteristics were a mean age of 62 +/- 5 years, 85% men, and 86% Caucasian. Mean duration of angina before randomization was 26 months (average 10 episodes/week), and 29% of patients were smokers, 67% had hypertension, 38% had previous MI, 71% had dyslipidemia, 34% had diabetes, 27% had previous revascularization, and 69% had multivessel CAD. Approximately 55% of patients met established criteria for the metabolic syndrome. In conclusion, baseline characteristics of the COURAGE trial study population indicate a highly symptomatic group of patients with CAD who have a significant duration and frequency of antecedent angina pectoris and a high prevalence of cardiac risk factors.     

Cardiovascular Effects of Anti-Diabetic Medications in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disorder of multiple etiologies that causes long-term damage of various organs including the cardiovascular system. A consistent observation shows that DM amplifies the risk of cardiovascular events by 4- to 6-fold. Since coronary artery disease (CAD) in diabetic patients exhibits diffuse and accelerated lesions, invasive revascularization continues to be a challenge and has worse outcomes than patients without DM. Owing to the pathogenesis of DM and the presence of severe endothelial dysfunction, investigators have been trying to find new treatment modalities that could target the treatment of the disease rather than the treatment of the lesion. Until new treatment modalities are proven and gain acceptance, invasive revascularization remains to be the choice of treatment in such patients. The focus of this review is to compare the results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of stable CAD in patients with DM.     

How to treat diabetic patients with multivesseal disease in the DES era

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus represent the 25% of those requiring myocardial revascularization. Choice of treatment in diabetic patients is much more controversial than in non-diabetics: this because coronary artery disease is more often complex and diffuse, left ventricular function is depressed, and concomitant multiple risk factors are present. These subset of patients experience worse outcomes than non diabetic patients undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Large randomized trials performed both in the early era of PCI and in the stent era suggest that CABG is superior to bare metal stent implantation in the treatment of diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. These findings are reflected in current guidelines, which favor CABG over PCI in most diabetics who require revascularization. However, substantial variability exists in practice patterns among individual hospital, suggesting a lack of clinical consensus. The major advantage of CABG over bare metal stent implantation in diabetic patients is the lower risk of repeat revascularization procedures through the follow-up. Better angiographic results have been demonstrated in the new era of drug-eluting stents (DES). Data from both the sirolimus and paclitaxel-eluting stents trials support the potential advantage of DES implantation both in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Preliminary data from studies comparing DES versus CABG in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease suggests that 1) no significant difference exists in the 12-month rate of death, myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular events in patients treated with DES as compared to off-pump bypass surgery, 2) a difference of 7.1% in the rate of repeat revascularization at 12-month exists in favor of bypass surgery and 3) diabetic retinopathy identifies a subgroup with poor outcome after both percutaneous and surgical myocardial revascularization.     

Percutaneous coronary interventions in diabetic patients: is complete revascularization important?

BACKGROUND: The long-term prognosis of diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) treated by surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization is significantly worse as compared to non-diabetics. Lower rates of complete revascularization may be one factor that influences the poor long-term outcome in the diabetic population. Our study assessed the impact of complete revascularization on the long-term prognosis in diabetic patients with CAD treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The study included 658 consecutive diabetic patients (mean age, 60.9+/-10.1 years) who underwent PCI. Multivessel disease was present in 352 patients (53.5%). Revascularization was complete in 94 (26.7%) and incomplete in 258 (73.3%) patients with multivessel disease. Reasons for incomplete revascularization included angioplasty of only the culprit lesion (43.4%); small vessel size (22.8%); moderate lesion, defined as diameter stenosis 50-69% (18.6%); chronic total occlusion of the non-intervened vessel (6.6%); and others (8.5%). Overall survival rate at 5 years was 87.4%. Patients who underwent complete revascularization had a 94.5% survival rate, compared to 83.0% for those with incomplete revascularization (p<0.001). Similarly, the rates of myocardial infarction-free survival were significantly higher in patients with complete versus incomplete revascularization (92.9% versus 79.9%, respectively). Incomplete revascularization was the most powerful independent predictor of mortality at follow-up (relative risk 95% confidence interval, 1.54-7.69; p=0.003). Our data suggest that complete myocardial revascularization may improve the long-term prognosis after PCI of diabetic patients with multivessel CAD.     

Noninvasive screening for coronary atherosclerosis and silent ischemia in asymptomatic type 2 diabetic patients: is it appropriate and cost-effective?

Coronary artery disease (CAD) accounts for 65% to 80% of deaths in diabetic patients. The merits of screening asymptomatic type 2 diabetic patients for either (A) the presence of coronary atherosclerosis by imaging of coronary calcification using cardiac computed tomography or (B) silent ischemia by stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) remain controversial. Some observers have advocated for such noninvasive screening in at least the subset of the diabetic population who have significant clinical CAD risk factors, so that the highest risk patients for future cardiac events can be identified and offered more aggressive intensive medical therapy or coronary revascularization and optimum medical therapy. Computed tomography coronary calcium scanning could be the first noninvasive screening test in these clinically high-risk diabetic patients, followed by stress MPI to detect silent ischemia in those who exhibit high coronary calcium scores.     

Strategies in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Lessons from the COURAGE and BARI-2D Trials

There is a continuing debate regarding the most effective strategy for treating stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Conflicting data have emerged from several small, randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses regarding the benefits of early revascularization in SIHD. Two recent multicenter, randomized trials, the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial and the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes (BARI-2D) trial, compared two management strategies in SIHD—an initial conservative approach with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus a strategy of early revascularization in combination with OMT. COURAGE randomized SIHD patients who were candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to either a strategy of early PCI in combination with OMT or OMT alone, whereas BARI-2D randomized diabetic patients with coronary artery disease to either early revascularization (PCI or coronary artery bypass surgery [CABG]) versus OMT. This review examines the principal findings of these trials, with discussion of their strengths, limitations, and applicability to the general population. The results support the hypothesis that in patients with SIHD, early revascularization with PCI in combination with OMT is not superior to OMT alone in reducing mortality and other major cardiovascular events. Subset analysis from BARI-2D did suggest that early CABG, although it did not reduce mortality, significantly reduced the rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction compared with an initial OMT approach. Based on these data, the majority of patients with SIHD should be managed initially with medical therapy, a strategy that is also the most cost effective. Revascularization can be considered for patients with severe or refractory symptoms despite a trial of medical therapy. For diabetic patients who have extensive coronary artery disease, early revascularization with CABG may be reasonable.     

Stable coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: The role of revascularization

The aim of this review is to present existing evidence of revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. A literature review was performed for trials studying revascularization, via CABG or PCI, in patients with CAD and LV dysfunction. Pivotal, high‐quality trials have investigated revascularization with CABG in stable CAD and LV dysfunction. CASS demonstrated improved 10‐year survival in the surgical group compared to medically treated patients. While 56‐month follow‐up of the STICH trial found no statistically significant difference between CABG and medical therapy in patients with stable CAD and LV dysfunction, the long‐term follow‐up at 10 years (STICHES) demonstrated that CABG did significantly decrease death from any cause and all secondary outcomes. However, these pivotal trials have focused solely on surgical revascularization. Comparable studies regarding outcomes after contemporary PCI methods in this particular subset of patients are severely lacking. More recent studies have included very small numbers of patients with reduced EF. In conclusion, given advances in surgical and non‐invasive fields, studies investigating long‐term effects of PCI versus CABG, including combined hybrid revascularization techniques are warranted. This review sets the stage for a high‐quality randomized, controlled trial comparing revascularization with PCI versus CABG in patients with stable CAD and LV dysfunction.     

The Impact of Revascularization on Mortality in Patients with Nonacute Coronary Artery Disease

Background

Although early revascularization improves outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes, the role of revascularization for patients with nonacute coronary artery disease is controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical or percutaneous revascularization with medical therapy alone to determine the impact of revascularization on death and nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with coronary artery disease.

Methods

The Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify randomized trials of coronary revascularization (either surgical or percutaneous) versus medical therapy alone in patients with nonacute coronary disease reporting the individual outcomes of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction reported at a minimum follow-up of 1 year. A random effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) for the 2 prespecified outcomes.

Results

Twenty-eight studies published from 1977 to 2007 were identified for inclusion in the analysis; the revascularization modality was percutaneous coronary intervention in 17 studies, coronary bypass grafting in 6 studies, and either strategy in 5 studies. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 10 years with a median of 3 years. The 28 trials enrolled 13,121 patients, of whom 6476 were randomized to revascularization and 6645 were randomized to medical therapy alone. The OR for revascularization versus medical therapy for mortality was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.88). A stratified analysis according to revascularization mode revealed both bypass grafting (OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.77) and percutaneous intervention (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99) to be superior to medical therapy with respect to mortality. Revascularization was not associated with a significant reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction compared with medical therapy (OR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.72-1.15).

Conclusion

Revascularization by coronary bypass surgery or percutaneous intervention in conjunction with medical therapy in patients with nonacute coronary artery disease is associated with significantly improved survival compared with medical therapy alone.     

Trials and tribulations associated with angina and traditional therapeutic approaches

Ischemic heart disease is the foremost cause of death in the United States and the developed countries. Stable angina is the initial manifestation of ischemic heart disease in one half of the patients and becomes a recurrent symptom in survivors of myocardial infarction (MI) and other forms of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). There are multiple therapeutic modalities currently available for treatment of anginal symptoms in patients with stable CAD. These include anti‐anginal drugs and myocardial revascularization procedures such as coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABGS), percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Anti‐anginal drug therapy is based on treatment with nitrates, beta blockers, and calcium channel blockers. A newly approved antianginal drug, ranolazine, is undergoing phase III evaluation. Not infrequently, combination therapy is often necessary for adequate symptom control in some patients with stable angina. Howerever, there has not been a systematic evaluation of individual or combination antianginal grug therapy on hard clinical end points in patients with stable angina. Most revascularization trials that have evaluated treatment with CABGS, PTCA, or PCI in patients with chronic CAD and stable angina have not shown significant improvement in survival or decreased incidence of non‐fatal MI compared to medical treatment. In the CABGS trials, various post‐hoc analyses have identified several smaller subgroups at high‐risk in whom CABGS might improve clinical outcomes. However, there are conflicting findings in different reports and these findings are futher compromised due to the heterogeneous groups of patients in these trials. Moreover, no prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) has confirmed an advantage of CABGS, compared to medical treatment, in reduction of hard clinical outcomes in any of the high‐risk subgroups. Based on the available data, it appears reasonable to conclude that for most patients (except perhaps in those with presence of left main disease > 50% stenosis) there is no apparent survival benefit of CABGS compared to medical therapy in stable CAD patients with angina. Although these trial have reported better symptom control associated with the revascularization intervention in most patients, this has not been adequately compared using modern medical therapies. Available data from recent studies also suggest treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a statin and a regular exercise regimen in patients with stable CAD and angina pectoris. Copyright © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.