in a Veterans Affairs Cooperative randomized trial. Veterans Affairs ACME InvestigatorS. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29: 1505–1511.
11 11 Pitt B, Waters D, Brown WV, et al. Aggressive lipid‐lowering therapy compared with angioplasty in stable coronary artery disease. Atorvastatin versus Revascularization Treatment Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 70–76.
12 12 Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non‐acute coronary heart disease: metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2000; 321: 73–77.
13 13 Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative therapy in nonacute coronary artery disease: a meta‐analysis. Circulation 2005; 111: 2906–2912.
14 14 Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1503–1516.
15 15 Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915922.
16 16 De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve‐guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1208–1217.
17 17 Hueb WA, Soares PR, Almeida De Oliveira S, et al. Five‐year follow‐up of the medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS): a prospective, randomized trial of medical therapy, balloon angioplasty, or bypass surgery for single proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 1999; 100(Suppl II): 107–113.
18 18 Hueb W, Lopes NH, Gersh BJ, et al. Five‐year follow‐up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): A randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 2007; 115: 1082–1089.
19 19 Al‐Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double‐blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2018; 391:31–40.
20 20 Davies RF, Goldberg AD, Forman S, et al. Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two‐year follow‐up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization. Circulation 1997; 95: 2037–2043.
21 21 Erne P, Schoenenberger AW, Burckhardt D, et al. Effects of percutaneous coronary interventions in silent ischemia after myocardial infarction: the SWISSI II randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007; 297: 1985–1991.
22 22 Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al. BARI 2D Study Group. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 2503–2511.
23 23 Bangalore S, Pursnani S, Kumar S, Bagos PG. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction in subjects with stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation 2013; 127: 769–781.
24 24 Chacko L, Howard JP, Rajkumar C, et al. Effects of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Death and Myocardial Infarction Stratified by Stable and Unstable Coronary Artery Disease. A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006363
25 25 Windecker S, Stortecky S, Stefanini GG et al. Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta–analysis. BMJ 2014; 348:g3859.
26 26 Goy JJ, Eeckhout E, Burnand B, et al. Coronary angioplasty versus left internal mammary artery grafting for isolated proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis. Lancet 1994; 343: 1449–1453.
27 27 Goy JJ, Kaufmann U, Hurni M, et al. SIMA Investigators 10‐year follow‐up of a prospective randomized trial comparing bare‐metal stenting with internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis the SIMA (Stenting versus Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52(10): 815–817.
28 28 Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(3): 213–224.
29 29 Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 217–225.
30 30 Anonymous. Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. The Lancet 1993; 341: 573–580.
31 31 Hamm CW, Reimers J, Ischinger T, et al. A randomized study of coronary angioplasty versus bypass‐surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1037–1043.
32 32 King SB III, Lembo, NJ, Weintraub WS, et al. A randomized trial comparing coronary angioplasty with coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1044–1050.
33 33 Anonymous. First‐year results of CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularisation Investigation). CABRI Trial Participants. The Lancet 1995; 346: 1179–1184.
34 34 Rodriguez A, Boullon F, Perez‐Balino N, et al. Argentine randomized trial of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease (ERACI): in‐hospital results and 1‐year follow‐up. ERACI Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22: 1060–1067.
35 35 Hoffman SN, TenBrook JA, Wolf MP, et al. A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: one‐ to eight‐year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41: 1293–1304.
36 36 BARI Investigators. The final 10‐year follow‐up results from the BARI randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 1600–1606.
37 37 Niles NW, McGrath PD, Malenka D, et al. Survival of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease after surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of a large regional prospective study. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 1008–1015.
38 38 Gersh BJ, Frye RL. Methods of coronary revascularization: things may not be as they seem. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2235–2237.
39 39 Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, et al. Comparison of coronary‐artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1117–1124.
40 40 Legrand VM, Serruys PW, Unger F, et al. Three‐year outcome after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease. Circulation 2004; 109: 1114–1120.
41 41 Serruys PW, Ong ATL, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five‐year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 575–581.
42 42 Rodriguez AE, Baldi J, Pereira CF, et al. Five‐year follow‐up of the Argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 582–588.
43 43 Booth J, Clayton T, Pepper J, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: six‐year follow‐up from the Stent or Surgery trial (SoS). Circulation 2008; 118: 381–388.
44 44 Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet 2009; 373: 1190–1197.
45 45 Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary‐artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 961–972.
46 46 Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients: 1‐year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery