Management of chronic coronary disease: is the pendulum returning to equipoise?

Over the last 3 decades, our ability to mechanically dilate obstructive coronary arterial stenoses has fundamentally altered our approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The result has been a swing from an initial pharmacologic approach to anatomically driven revascularization. An accumulation of clinical evidence provides strong support for such intervention in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). In stable CAD, dilative therapy was believed to be superior based on the assumption that high-risk coronary anatomy or myocardial ischemia increases the risk of future death and myocardial infarction. However, there have been major advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of ACS and the recognition of the significance of predisposing non-flow-limiting coronary stenoses prone to rupture, as well as increasing insight into plaque and patient vulnerability. This improved understanding of the disease has led to the more aggressive use of appropriately targeted pharmacologic agents and an evolution in what constitutes optimal medical therapy (OMT). Data from recent studies, such as the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial, support the concept that in patients with stable CAD, OMT alone in this day and age compares favorably with a therapeutic strategy combining OMT with mechanical intervention. Thus, the treatment pendulum may be swinging back to the understanding that "best practice" today requires the judicious use of interventional and medical therapies in the appropriate patient population.