Myocardial infarction is a serious life-threatening heart disease caused by the sudden blockage of blood vessels based on atherosclerotic lesions of the coronary arteries, causing necrosis of the corresponding myocardium. Before the 1970s, the mortality rate of myocardial infarction was as high as 30%. In recent years, due to the development of technologies such as interventional therapy, stenting of the occluded coronary artery can rapidly provide adequate and effective blood supply to the myocardium on the verge of necrosis, reducing the mortality rate of the acute phase of myocardial infarction to less than 5%. Coronary intervention is one of the important medical technology innovations of the 20th century. Just as people were talking about interventional technology, a study was published in April of this year in the prestigious medical journal New England Medicine. The study showed that patients with coronary artery disease who chose to have an interventional procedure did not have better long-term results than those who were treated with standard medication alone. The results of this study not only caused widespread controversy in the medical community, but also made many patients wonder: Should I have cardiac intervention? Should stents be installed? Recently, some domestic popular science media even put forward the view that “coronary heart disease treatment only uses medication and does not require stenting”. This is even more confusing for patients. Intervention: one of the preferred treatment methods for acute myocardial infarction “Time is myocardium, time is life.” This is a classic quote that is widely circulated in the rescue of acute myocardial infarction. This quote very graphically tells us that by restoring blood flow to the infarcted myocardial region as soon as possible, more myocardium can be saved, thus reducing mortality. There are currently two main methods to restore blood flow to occluded coronary arteries: one is thrombolytic therapy and the other is interventional therapy. Thrombolytic therapy has many limitations: in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Only 1/3 of patients with acute myocardial infarction are suitable for thrombolytic therapy; those who receive thrombolytic therapy. The patency rate of blood vessels is only 50% to 70%. After thrombolytic therapy, myocardial ischemia recurs in about 1/3 of patients due to the presence of residual stenosis. In emergency intervention, a tiny mesh alloy tube is fitted to a catheter with a compression balloon, which is expanded to hold the stent against the vessel wall as it enters the diseased vessel. The balloon is then retracted, the catheter is withdrawn, and the stent is placed permanently in place. The vessel is then propped open and blood flow is maintained, thus saving the dying myocardium. This treatment method has the advantages of less trauma, better efficacy, fewer complications and lower morbidity and mortality, but emergency interventions require the surgeon’s skill level, experience. The instrumentation and equipment, as well as the teamwork of the physicians, are very demanding. It is also required to start interventional treatment within 60-90 minutes after the patient’s visit. Therefore, this procedure is currently only available in some large cardiac interventional centers in China. It must be emphasized that the treatment effect of acute myocardial infarction has a great relationship with the time, the earlier you go to the hospital, the more treatment options are available to the doctor, and the better the treatment effect. The later the time, the better the methods will not be used. Keystone: medication and lifestyle changes Many patients with coronary artery disease have a wrong idea that they are fine after putting in a stent, do not take medication according to the doctor’s advice, and usually do not pay attention to changing their lifestyle, which results in occlusion at the stent or development of lesions elsewhere in the blood vessel. Not long ago, I met a 40-year-old male patient in the outpatient clinic who did not take anti-platelet drugs such as aspirin and Bolivar after the stent was installed, nor did he control his blood sugar, and continued to smoke a lot, as a result, only six months after the stent was put in, he was hospitalized again because of myocardial infarction), D (diet and control of diabetes), and E (education and exercise). There is now a growing body of evidence suggesting that in patients with acute myocardial infarction, interventional implantation of a stent can open the stenosis, restore blood flow to the vessel, and significantly reduce mortality. However, stents only relieve the stenosis, not the coronary heart disease itself. In short, for patients with myocardial infarction, interposition and medication treatment are not contradictory and opposing, but should be combined to treat both the symptoms and the root cause to ensure the effectiveness of treatment.