The usefulness of CABG to improve survival is uncertain in patients with significant (70%) diame- ter stenoses in 2 major coronary arteries not involv- ing the proximal LAD artery and without extensive ischemia.987 (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.366,959,985,987 (Level of Evidence: B) 3. CABG might be considered with the primary or sole intent of improving survival in patients with SIHD with severe LV systolic dysfunction (EF <35%) whether or not viable myocardium is pres- ent.355,365,410,412,999 1002 (Level of Evidence: B) 4. The usefulness of CABG or PCI to improve survival is uncertain in patients with previous CABG and extensive anterior wall ischemia on noninvasive test- ing.1021 1025,1029 1032 (Level of Evidence: B) Class III: Harm 1. CABG or PCI should not be performed with the primary or sole intent to improve survival in pa- tients with SIHD with 1 or more coronary stenoses that are not anatomically or functionally significant (eg, <70% diameter non left main coronary artery stenosis, FFR >0.80, no or only mild ischemia on noninvasive testing), involve only the left circumflex or right coronary artery, or subtend only a small area of viable myocardium.306,327,412,985,990,995 998 (Level of Evidence: B) 5.3. Revascularization to Improve Symptoms: Recommendations Class I 1. CABG or PCI to improve symptoms is beneficial in patients with 1 or more significant (>70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses amenable to revascularization and unacceptable angina despite GDMT.366,407,1012 1018,1020,1033 (Level of Evidence: A) Class IIa 1. 