CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with significant (>70% diameter) stenoses in 2 major coronary arteries with severe or extensive myocardial ischemia (eg, high-risk criteria on stress testing, abnormal intracoronary hemodynamic eval- uation, or >20% perfusion defect by myocardial perfusion stress imaging) or target vessels supplying a large area of viable myocardium.348 351 (Level of Evidence: B) 2. CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with mild-moderate LV systolic dysfunction (EF 35% to 50%) and significant (>70% diameter ste- nosis) multivessel CAD or proximal LAD coronary artery stenosis, when viable myocardium is present in the region of intended revascularization.318,352 356 (Level of Evidence: B) 3. CABG with a LIMA graft to improve survival is reasonable in patients with significant (>70% diam- eter) stenosis in the proximal LAD artery and evi- dence of extensive ischemia.87,88,318,343 (Level of Evi- dence: B) 4. It is reasonable to choose CABG over PCI to im- prove survival in patients with complex 3-vessel CAD (eg, SYNTAX score >22), with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery, who are good candidates for CABG.320,334,343,359 360 (Level of Evidence: B) 5. CABG is probably recommended in preference to PCI to improve survival in patients with multivessel CAD and diabetes mellitus, particularly if a LIMA graft can be anastomosed to the LAD artery.350,362 369 (Level of Evidence: B) Class IIb 1. The usefulness of CABG to improve survival is uncertain in patients with significant (>70%) steno- ses in 2 major coronary arteries not involving the proximal LAD artery and without extensive ische- mia.343 (Level of Evidence: C) 2. The usefulness of PCI to improve survival is uncer- tain in patients with 2- or 3-vessel CAD (with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery) or 1-vessel proximal LAD disease.314,341,343,370 (Level of Evidence: B) 3. 