Myocardial revascularization has been an established mainstay in the treatment of CAD for almost half a century. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), used in clinical practice since the 1960s, is arguably the most intensively studied surgical procedure ever undertaken, while percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), used for over three decades, has been subjected to more randomized clinical trials (RCTs) than any other interventional procedure. PCI was first introduced in 1977 by Andreas Gruentzig and by the mid-1980s was promoted as an alternative to CABG. While both interventions have witnessed significant technological advances, in particular the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in PCI and of arterial grafts in CABG, their role in the treatment of patients presenting with stable CAD is being challenged by advances in medical treatment, referred to as optimal medical therapy (OMT),      which include intensive lifestyle and pharmacological management. Furthermore, the differences between the two revascularization strategies should be recognized. In CABG, bypass grafts are placed to the mid-coronary vessel beyond the ‘culprit’ lesion(s), providing extra sources of nutrient blood flowto the myocardium and offering protection against the consequences of further proximal obstructive disease. In contrast, coronary stents aim to restore the normal conductance of the native coronary vasculature without offering protection against new disease proximal to the stent.