Chronic Coronary Syndrome

Meet the patient

A 62-year-old smoker with hypertension gets a tight central ache every time he hurries up the hill to the bus stop — it lifts within two minutes of standing still and never comes at rest. His ECG between episodes is normal. The registrar's reflex is "cardiology, stent him". The two questions that decide his next six months are the two that decide every CCS case: is this obstructive coronary disease? (pre-test probability plus a functional or CTCA test answers it), and does he need a stent or just tablets? (the COURAGE, ISCHEMIA and ORBITA evidence answers it, usually in favour of tablets).^[1]

Hold those two questions and the whole topic slots into place — CCS is a supply-demand disease you manage with drugs and stents you reserve, not a plumbing emergency you reperfuse.^[1]

One disease, six faces — the 2019 ESC rebrand

"Stable angina" was retired in 2019; "chronic coronary syndrome" replaced it. The 2019 ESC Guidelines (Knuuti) reframed coronary disease as a lifelong continuum a patient drifts in and out of, not a binary stable-or-unstable label — because the same patient with exertional angina today is one plaque rupture away from ACS tomorrow.^[1]

CCS spans six clinical scenarios the 2019 ESC document lists, and a final-prof candidate is expected to reproduce them:^[1]

^[1]

Enlarge

The teaching point examiners reward: CCS is not "no acute event" — it is a phase of a chronic disease that includes patients years after their stent, patients with heart failure from silent ischaemia, and the woman with INOCA whose angiogram is clean but whose microcirculation is not. The 2013 ESC stable-CAD guideline (Montalescot) was the predecessor that introduced the diamond pre-test-probability model the 2019 update built on.^[7]

The therapeutic objectives fall into three, and they map onto the rest of this topic: prevent events (MI, stroke, death — the job of disease-modifying therapy), relieve symptoms (the job of anti-anginals and revascularisation), and preserve function (lifestyle, rehab, risk-factor control).^[2]

The three faces of chest pain — typical, atypical, non-anginal

The history does more diagnostic work than any single test in CCS — but only if you classify the pain correctly. Three features define typical angina, and how many a patient has sets the pre-test probability: retrosternal site, provocation by exertion or emotion, and relief by rest or nitrates within minutes.^[1]

^[1]

Pre-test probability (PTP) of obstructive CAD is modelled from age, sex, and symptom character — and the 2019 ESC revised the older Diamond-Forrester-derived table sharply DOWNWARD, to roughly a third of the 2013 values, because the prevalence of obstructive disease among patients referred for testing has fallen. The number then drives the next test: PTP 5 percent or below — testing only for compelling reasons; 5 to 15 percent — test only after weighing the wider clinical likelihood (risk factors, resting ECG changes, LV dysfunction, coronary calcium); above 15 percent — this is where non-invasive testing is most useful, so CTCA or functional imaging; high clinical likelihood with symptoms refractory to medical therapy, or typical angina at a low workload with high event risk — straight to invasive angiography.^[1][24]

Everyone forgets: the classic descriptors are pressure, heaviness, tightness or squeezing — patients rarely volunteer the word "pain", and a careful historian who lets the patient describe it in their own words catches far more angina than one who ticks boxes.^[1]

Many patients — women, the elderly, diabetics — never describe typical pain at all; their angina hides behind an anginal equivalent such as exertional dyspnoea, fatigue, or epigastric discomfort, which is why the 2019 ESC pre-test-probability table scores dyspnoea as a presenting symptom in its own right. Treat exertional dyspnoea in a smoking diabetic as ischaemia until you have proved it is not.^[1][24]

The CCS grading — and the IV-equals-hospital trap

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading is the bedside severity scale every angina stem expects you to quote — and it carries one trap that bites.^[27][7]

^{[27] [7]}

The classic trap: CCS class IV means rest angina — and rest angina is unstable angina until proven otherwise, not a stable outpatient you book into a clinic in six weeks. The moment pain occurs at rest, crosses 20 minutes, accelerates over days (crescendo), or comes with dynamic ECG changes, the patient has crossed the CCS-to-ACS border and belongs on the NSTE-ACS pathway.^[1]

Pathophysiology — the fixed plaque and the ischaemia cascade

The CCS plaque is the stable twin of the ACS plaque: a thick fibrous cap over a small lipid core, not a thin cap primed to rupture. Atherosclerosis begins in childhood as a fatty streak, matures over decades, and the lesion of stable angina is the end of that slow road — fixed, calcified, and predictable.^[1]

^[7]

The ischaemia in CCS is supply-demand mismatch, not acute occlusion. Demand rises with heart rate, contractility, and wall stress during exertion; supply is fixed by the stenotic segment and a finite coronary flow reserve. As the stenosis narrows the lumen, the reserve is exhausted at lower workloads — so the angina threshold becomes reproducible ("three flights always brings it on"), which is itself the bedside marker of a fixed plaque versus vasospasm or microvascular disease.^[1]

When demand outruns supply, ischaemia unfolds down a fixed cascade — each ischaemic episode is initiated by the supply-demand imbalance, and each step below is one a test can catch before the patient feels pain:^[26]

^[26]

Enlarge

Two non-obstructive mechanisms explain most "angina with clean angiograms". INOCA — ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries — is coronary microvascular dysfunction with exhausted flow reserve, invisible to an angiogram that images only the epicardial lumen. A clean angiogram is the common result, not the exception: in a 398,978-patient national registry of elective catheterisation in people without known coronary disease, only 37.6 percent had obstructive disease, and male sex was the strongest predictor of finding it (odds ratio 2.70). Prinzmetal (vasospastic) angina is focal or diffuse epicardial spasm, classically at rest in the early morning, with transient ST elevation.^[1][23]

Investigations — pick the test by pre-test probability

The single most important investigation decision in CCS is NOT which test — it is whether to test at all, and that decision is set by the pre-test probability. The 2019 ESC framework routes patients by probability to avoid low-yield testing and incidental findings.^[1]

Every patient first gets the baseline bundle: a 12-lead ECG (often normal between episodes, but may show a prior Q-wave infarct, LVH, or conduction disease), bloods (FBC — anaemia precipitates angina; renal function; fasting lipids including lipoprotein(a); HbA1c; thyroid function; NT-proBNP if heart-failure signs), and a chest X-ray.^[1]

^{[1] [24]}

The physiology numbers — FFR and iFR — are what turn an angiogram into a treatment decision. Anatomy alone over-reads significance; physiology tells you whether a stenosis actually matters.^[1]

^{[1] [4] [19] [20]}

A stenosis that looks ugly on angiography but has an FFR above 0.80 does not need a stent — leave it. FAME 2 is the trial: FFR-guided PCI plus optimal medical therapy cut the composite of death, MI, and urgent revascularisation versus medical therapy alone, driven almost entirely by fewer urgent revascularisations.^[4]

The 2019 ESC defines high event risk as a cardiac mortality above 3 percent per year, and names what counts on each test: left main disease, proximal LAD disease, or three-vessel disease with proximal stenoses on CTCA or invasive angiography; ischaemia in 10 percent or more of the left ventricle on SPECT or PET; two or more of 16 segments with stress perfusion defects, or three or more dobutamine-induced dysfunctional segments on CMR; and FFR 0.80 or below, or iFR 0.89 or below on invasive physiology. These are the patients in whom revascularisation is discussed for prognosis, not only for symptoms.^[1]

The four pillars of therapy

CCS therapy is four pillars, and the disease-modifying backbone comes first because it is what actually saves lives — the anti-anginals and the stent only make the patient comfortable.^[1]

^{[2] [13] [15] [12] [4] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [15]}

The disease-modifying detail examiners test: every CCS patient leaves on a statin, and the 2019 ESC goal is to cut LDL-C by at least 50 percent from baseline and to below 1.4 mmol/L (55 mg per deciliter). The PCSK9-inhibitor outcome trials sit above that: FOURIER enrolled patients with atherosclerotic disease and LDL-C at or above 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg per deciliter) on statin therapy, added subcutaneous evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks (or 420 mg monthly) and cut the primary composite endpoint (9.8 vs 11.3 percent; hazard ratio 0.85); ODYSSEY OUTCOMES enrolled patients 1 to 12 months after an acute coronary syndrome on a high-intensity or maximally tolerated statin, added subcutaneous alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks blind-titrated to an LDL-C of 25 to 50 mg per deciliter (0.6 to 1.3 mmol/L), and cut recurrent ischaemic events (9.5 vs 11.1 percent; hazard ratio 0.85). For antiplatelet therapy, clopidogrel 75 mg once daily is the trial-proven alternative where aspirin cannot be used.^{[1][11][10][15]}

Lifestyle is not a footnote. Smoking cessation cuts all-cause mortality by about 36 percent in patients with coronary heart disease (relative risk 0.64, 95 percent CI 0.58 to 0.71, across 20 prospective cohorts) — the single most impactful intervention in CCS, and the one most likely to be skipped in a busy clinic. Reinforce it at every visit, alongside the Mediterranean diet, at least 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, and structured cardiac rehabilitation, which lowers morbidity and mortality in eligible patients.^[21][13]

The anti-anginal ladder — bisoprolol first, then build

Anti-anginals relieve symptoms; they do not improve prognosis. That distinction is the whole point of the stepwise ladder — start one agent, titrate, add a second, and only escalate to a third or to revascularisation when two agents at optimal dose have failed.^[7]

^{[1] [13] [12]}

Three named traps on this ladder cost marks and harm patients:^[1]

• Diltiazem or verapamil WITH a beta-blocker equals bradycardia and AV block. These are the rate-lowering non-dihydropyridine CCBs; the ESC warns of worsening heart failure, excessive bradycardia and AV block with the combination, and specifically does not advise beta-blockade with verapamil. Amlodipine is the dihydropyridine you CAN combine safely.
• Nitrates plus a PDE5 inhibitor (sildenafil and similar agents) equals life-threatening hypotension. If a patient on a PDE5 inhibitor develops chest pain, nitrates must not be given for 24 hours after sildenafil or vardenafil, or 48 hours after tadalafil — ask before you prescribe.^[7]
• Nitrate tolerance. A nitrate-free or nitrate-low interval of about 8 to 10 hours (asymmetric dosing) preserves the effect — a round-the-clock nitrate simply stops working.^[7]

Revascularisation — symptoms, not survival, for most

This is the single most examinable controversy in CCS, and the four trials below are the answer to "does this patient need a stent?". For most stable patients without high-risk anatomy, optimal medical therapy is first-line, and a stent relieves symptoms rather than saving lives.^[2]

^{[2] [17] [3] [18] [6] [4] [16]}

Enlarge

^{[1] [13] [4]}

So when DO you revascularise for prognosis rather than symptoms? The exceptions the trials left standing are the 2019 ESC high-event-risk anatomies: left main disease, proximal LAD disease, and three-vessel disease with proximal stenoses, particularly with LV dysfunction or diabetes. FREEDOM randomised 1,900 diabetics with multivessel disease to PCI with drug-eluting stents or CABG, and CABG won on death, MI or stroke at 5 years (18.7 vs 26.6 percent) at the cost of more stroke (5.2 vs 2.4 percent) — so CABG is preferred over PCI for diabetic multivessel disease, with internal mammary grafting where feasible.^[1][22]

The honest consultant line: revascularise for symptoms when two anti-anginals at optimal dose have failed and the FFR is below 0.80; revascularise for prognosis when the anatomy is high-risk. For everyone in between, intensify the medical therapy and the lifestyle work — and tell the patient honestly what ORBITA found.^[4]

The subtypes that bite

CCS is an umbrella, and several faces under it demand a different pathway from "stent the fixed plaque". Name them because each changes management.^[1]

^{[1] [28] [25]}

The classic trap on subtypes: a woman with exertional dyspnoea, a positive stress test, and a clean angiogram does NOT have "non-cardiac pain" — she has INOCA, and the right move is anti-anginal therapy directed at the microcirculation, not reassurance and discharge.^[1]

Complications — when stable disease turns

Untreated or under-treated CCS does not stay stable. It drifts towards four outcomes, and the dominant one is the event this whole topic exists to prevent.^[1]

• Acute coronary syndrome — the vulnerable twin plaque ruptures; this is the event disease-modifying therapy exists to prevent, and it is why a "stable" patient who suddenly changes pattern has crossed the border.
• Heart failure — two mechanisms: acute ischaemic stunning with adverse remodelling, or chronic hibernation of viable myocardium that recovers with revascularisation.
• Arrhythmia — atrial fibrillation from atrial ischaemia and age; ventricular arrhythmia (VT or VF) from scar or LV dysfunction, driving ICD decisions.
• Functional decline — uncontrolled angina limits activity, work, and independence; depression and anxiety amplify symptoms.^[2]

Chronic total occlusion of an epicardial artery can develop silently, contributing to LV dysfunction or to angina that persists despite medical therapy — and PCI of a chronic total occlusion is one of the escalation steps the 2019 ESC expects to have been tried or considered before a patient is labelled refractory.^[1]

The 2019 ESC grades prognosis by annual cardiac mortality: low event risk is under 1 percent a year and high event risk is over 3 percent a year, with a normal functional imaging test sitting in the low band (1 percent or less a year for cardiac death or MI). That is why risk stratification (LV function, ischaemic burden, diabetes, CKD) matters far more than the label "stable".^[1][24]

How CCS patients come to harm — the preventable list

• The patient sent home with "gastritis" who was crescendo-ing into an MI — the preventable ACS.^[1]
• A stent placed for a stenosis with FFR above 0.80 — bleeding and procedural risk for a lesion that did not matter.^[4]
• A round-the-clock nitrate with no nitrate-free interval — tolerance, and angina back within weeks.^[7]
• Diltiazem added to a beta-blocker — bradycardia and AV block on the ward.^[7]
• GTN given to a patient who took sildenafil the night before — profound hypotension.^[2]
• A diabetic with silent ischaemia told their normal ECG means "no heart disease" — the MI that was never investigated.^[1]
• OMT abandoned the moment a stent goes in — the statin and ACE inhibitor are what prevent the next event, not the stent.^[2]

Special populations — thresholds and choices change

Examiners use these heavily on NEET-PG and INICET, and each changes both the work-up and the treatment.^[1]

Women. Atypical presentations dominate (dyspnoea, fatigue, epigastric discomfort over substernal pressure); pre-test probability of obstructive CAD is lower, and INOCA and microvascular angina are commoner. Stress echo or MRI beats exercise ECG; CTCA is reliable. Anti-anginal choice is similar, but ACEi or ARBs are teratogenic in pregnancy — and women still receive less aggressive secondary prevention despite higher absolute risk.^[1]

Diabetes. Accelerated atherosclerosis, multivessel and silent disease, worse prognosis — a lower threshold for invasive investigation. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are recommended for selected patients with chronic coronary disease, including some without diabetes, because their cardiovascular benefit is independent of glycaemic control. For diabetic multivessel disease, FREEDOM favoured CABG over PCI even with drug-eluting stents (death, MI or stroke at 5 years 18.7 vs 26.6 percent).^[13][22]

Chronic kidney disease. Both a risk marker and a therapeutic limit — no NSAIDs, contrast-sparing for CTCA and angiography, dose-adjusted antithrombotics, and close creatinine monitoring with ACEI or ARB. Stress MRI is preferred where available; bleeding risk is high. Joint cardiology-nephrology review for advanced CKD.^[5]

The elderly and frail. Multivessel disease, prior MI, CKD, and atrial fibrillation commonly coexist; presentations are atypical (fatigue, falls, confusion). Polypharmacy and bleeding risk demand careful dose titration and a deprescribing review. Guide revascularisation by biological, not chronological, age, with shared decision-making — the 2012 ACCF/AHA stable ischaemic heart disease guideline (Fihn) still anchors these nuanced risk recommendations.^[5]

Prior CABG. CTCA accuracy is frequently impaired after revascularisation by blooming artefact from clips and stents and by incomplete assessment of the native vessels, so functional imaging is more reliable; weigh redo CABG versus PCI for graft versus native disease individually. Roughly two in five saphenous vein grafts are occluded by 10 years (patency 61 percent, versus 85 percent for internal mammary grafts) — new angina in a grafted patient is graft disease or native progression until shown otherwise.^[24][25]

The trials that changed practice

The 2019 ESC CCS Guidelines unified the stable-CAD landscape under one umbrella and made pre-test-probability testing and FFR-guided revascularisation the defaults. The landmark trials an examiner expects you to cite, and what each changed:^[1]

^{[2] [17] [3] [18] [4] [16] [6]}

The 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS stable ischaemic heart disease guideline (Fihn) is the parallel North American document still referenced for nuanced risk recommendations, and the 2013 ESC stable-CAD guideline (Montalescot) was the immediate predecessor that introduced the diamond pre-test-probability model.^[5][7]

Newer secondary-prevention evidence has expanded the medical toolkit for high-risk chronic coronary disease. COMPASS found that low-dose rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin beat aspirin alone on the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke or myocardial infarction (4.1 vs 5.4 percent; hazard ratio 0.76) at the cost of more major bleeding (3.1 vs 1.9 percent). LoDoCo2 found that colchicine 0.5 mg once daily reduced the composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke or ischaemia-driven revascularisation in chronic coronary disease (6.8 vs 9.6 percent; hazard ratio 0.69).^[8][9]

The mantra, and the mnemonic

^{[1] [4] [12] [13]}

The mantra: Tablets save lives, stents relieve symptoms — revascularise the stenosis whose FFR is below 0.80 and the anatomy that is high-risk, and never call rest angina stable.^[1][2]

Ward-round test — three stems, thirty seconds each

Stem 1 — the man from the top of the topic (answer)ShowHide

The 62-year-old smoker with exertional central ache relieved by rest, normal ECG between episodes. His pre-test probability is intermediate. The registrar says "stent him". What do you actually do? Model: This is classic CCS. Confirm the diagnosis with non-invasive testing chosen by his intermediate pre-test probability — CT coronary angiography or stress imaging. Start guideline-directed medical therapy now — antiplatelet therapy, a high-intensity statin, an ACE inhibitor for his hypertension, plus smoking cessation — and a first-line beta-blocker anti-anginal with sublingual GTN for episodes. Do NOT default to a stent: COURAGE found that PCI added to optimal medical therapy did not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction or other major cardiovascular events, and ISCHEMIA found no evidence that an initial invasive strategy reduced ischaemic cardiovascular events or death even in moderate-severe ischaemia. Reserve revascularisation for refractory symptoms or high-risk anatomy, physiology-guided by an FFR of 0.80 or less.^[1][2][3][4]

Stem 2 — the woman with a clean angiogram (answer)ShowHide

A 58-year-old woman has exertional dyspnoea, a positive stress test, and an invasive angiogram showing no obstructive epicardial disease. The team calls it non-cardiac and plans discharge. What is the diagnosis and the right move? Model: This is INOCA — ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries, driven by coronary microvascular dysfunction (and possibly vasospasm). It is NOT non-cardiac pain. The right move is anti-anginal therapy directed at supply-demand matching — a beta-blocker first-line, with ranolazine, a calcium-channel blocker, or an ACE inhibitor as add-ons — and structured risk-factor modification. Only about 38 percent of patients without known coronary disease who undergo elective angiography prove to have obstructive disease, and women less often than men, so dismissing this presentation as non-cardiac is the recurring error.^[1][23]

Stem 3 — the patient whose pattern changed (answer)ShowHide

A known CCS patient telephones: the pain that used to come after three flights now comes after one, woke him at 4am, and lasted 25 minutes. What has happened, and what do you do in the next hour? Model: This is crescendo angina with rest pain — unstable angina or NSTE-ACS until proven otherwise, not a stable-clinic follow-up. Activate the chest-pain pathway: resting ECG, high-sensitivity troponin and formal risk stratification, admission, ACS antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatment with anti-ischaemic therapy, and an early invasive strategy for high-risk patients. The change in pattern is the whole clue — rest angina means hospital.^[1][14]

References28ShowHide

1. [1]Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal, 2020.PMID 31504439
2. [2]Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. (COURAGE Trial Research Group) Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2007.PMID 17387127
3. [3]Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. (ISCHEMIA Investigators) Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2020.PMID 32227755
4. [4]De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al. (FAME 2 Trial Investigators) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2014.PMID 25176289
5. [5]Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2012.PMID 23182125
6. [6]Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, et al. (ORBITA Investigators) Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2018.PMID 29103656
7. [7]Task Force Members, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J, 2013.PMID 23996286
8. [8]Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, et al. (COMPASS Investigators) Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2017.PMID 28844192
9. [9]Nidorf SM, Fiolet ATL, Mosterd A, et al. (LoDoCo2 Trial) Colchicine in Patients with Chronic Coronary Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2020.PMID 32865380
10. [10]Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC, et al. (FOURIER Steering Committee) Evolocumab and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2017.PMID 28304224
11. [11]Schwartz GG, Steg PG, Szarek M, et al. (ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Committees and Investigators) Alirocumab and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Coronary Syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine, 2018.PMID 30403574
12. [12]Tardif JC, Ford I, Tendera M, et al. Efficacy of ivabradine, a new selective I(f) inhibitor, compared with atenolol in patients with chronic stable angina. European Heart Journal, 2005.PMID 16214830
13. [13]Virani SS, Newby LK, Arnold SV, et al. 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease. Circulation, 2023.PMID 37471501
14. [14]Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary. Circulation, 2021.PMID 34709928
15. [15]CAPRIE Steering Committee A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). Lancet, 1996.PMID 8918275
16. [16]De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. (FAME 2 Trial Investigators) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012.PMID 22924638
17. [17]Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, et al. (COURAGE Trial Research Group) Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2008.PMID 18703470
18. [18]Spertus JA, Jones PG, Maron DJ, et al. (ISCHEMIA Research Group) Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2020.PMID 32227753
19. [19]Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi HM, et al. Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI. New England Journal of Medicine, 2017.PMID 28317458
20. [20]Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, et al. (iFR-SWEDEHEART Investigators) Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI. New England Journal of Medicine, 2017.PMID 28317438
21. [21]Critchley JA, Capewell S. Mortality risk reduction associated with smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review. JAMA, 2003.PMID 12837716
22. [22]Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. (FREEDOM Trial Investigators) Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012.PMID 23121323
23. [23]Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. New England Journal of Medicine, 2010.PMID 20220183
24. [24]Saraste A, Knuuti J. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: Recommendations for cardiovascular imaging. Herz, 2020.PMID 32430520
25. [25]Goldman S, Zadina K, Moritz T, et al. Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery: results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2004.PMID 15582312
26. [26]Nesto RW, Kowalchuk GJ. The ischemic cascade: temporal sequence of hemodynamic, electrocardiographic and symptomatic expressions of ischemia. American Journal of Cardiology, 1987.PMID 2950748
27. [27]Campeau L. Letter: Grading of angina pectoris. Circulation, 1976.PMID 947585
28. [28]Tamis-Holland JE, Jneid H, Reynolds HR, et al. Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Myocardial Infarction in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 2019.PMID 30913893