Abstract
Previous studies demonstrated that coronary revascularization, especially percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), does not significantly decrease the incidence of cardiac death or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Many studies using myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) showed that, for patients with moderate to severe ischemia, revascularization is the preferred therapy for survival benefit, whereas for patients with no to mild ischemia, medical therapy is the main choice, and revascularization is associated with increased mortality. There is some evidence that revascularization in patients with no or mild ischemia is likely to result in worsened ischemia, which is associated with increased mortality. Studies using fractional flow reserve (FFR) demonstrate that ischemia-guided PCI is superior to angiography-guided PCI, and the presence of ischemia is the key to decision-making for PCI. Complementary use of noninvasive MPI and invasive FFR would be important to compensate for each method's limitations. Recent studies of appropriateness criteria showed that, although PCI in the acute setting and coronary bypass surgery are properly performed in most patients, PCI in the non-acute setting is often inappropriate, and stress testing to identify myocardial ischemia is performed in less than half of patients. Also, some studies suggested that revascularization in an inappropriate setting is not associated with improved prognosis. Taken together, the presence and the extent of myocardial ischemia is a key factor in the management of patients with stable coronary artery disease, and coronary revascularization in the absence of myocardial ischemia is associated with worsened prognosis.