Abstract
In patients with acute coronary syndrome, an aggressive approach with coronary angiography and revascularization leads to important benefits compared to medical therapy alone. On the contrary, the prognostic impact of coronary revascularization in patients suffering from stable coronary artery disease has long been the subject of debate. The pivotal study in this area is COURAGE, published in 2007, in which coronary revascularization showed no benefit about the combined endpoint of death from all causes and acute myocardial infarction (AMI), compared to medical therapy. The ISCHEMIA study, published in 2020, compared selective coronary angiography and revascularization vs. a non-invasive approach. By protocol, the patients were initially evaluated with coronary computed axial tomography angiography: in case of coronary stenosis >50%, they were then randomized to the two strategies. While in the invasive arm patients were revascularized, in the non-invasive arm revascularization was used only in case of patient destabilization. As in COURAGE, the results of ISCHEMIA did not demonstrate superiority of revascularization over medical therapy alone for a combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, AMI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or cardiac arrest. Based on recent evidence from ISCHEMIA, it is therefore confirmed that coronary revascularization in stable patients does not seem to improve the prognosis compared to medical therapy alone.