The two main medical procedures used to treat coronary heart disease are heart bypass and stent intervention. As the methods of treating coronary artery disease become more sophisticated, less invasive stenting has become a better option for many heart patients. Some people even claim that “heart bypass” surgery will soon be retired from the stage of history. In fact, the advantages of bypass surgery are irreplaceable. Let’s go over the pros and cons of heart bypass versus stent intervention. First of all, restenosis rate has always been the weakness of interventional treatment. The restenosis rate of ordinary stents placed at the narrowed coronary arteries is about 30% in six months, and even with drug-coated stents, the restenosis rate is about 5%. With heart bypass surgery, there is no need to worry too much about restenosis. In addition, not all patients with coronary artery disease are suitable for stenting, for example, it is difficult and risky to put stents at the bifurcation of a vessel, or a vessel with more than two stenoses, or a completely occluded vessel. In fact, for complex lesions, surgical coronary artery bypass surgery is still the better choice. The postoperative effect of bypass surgery is aptly described as “immediate”. Many patients can walk up and down stairs a few days after receiving “heart bypass” surgery, and can walk out of their homes a week later, and can go to work 1-2 months after surgery. In recent years, with the rapid development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, bypass surgery can be completed without cutting open the sternum. Therefore, “heart bypass” has a broad development prospect. Patients with coronary artery disease with the following lesion characteristics should choose bypass. 1, left trunk lesion: According to the domestic and international guidelines, surgery is better for left trunk lesion. This is because left main stem can be fatal in case of blockage or restenosis. In order to narrow the risk, bypass is the better choice. 2.Three branch lesions: There are more lesions vessels, and if interventional treatment is chosen, many stents have to be placed, which will greatly increase the chance of restenosis and thrombosis. Moreover, the economic burden of patients is also higher. 3. Patients with cardiac insufficiency: such patients need complete hemodynamic reconstruction to promote the recovery of ischemic myocardium, which is difficult to do with intervention. 4.Patients with diabetes mellitus: common stent has a higher restenosis rate for diabetic patients, while drug stent has been introduced for a shorter period of time, and there is no clear evidence that interventional treatment will have better efficacy than bypass. 5. Patients with post-myocardial infarction complications of coronary artery disease: ventricular rupture, septal perforation, mitral valve closure insufficiency, etc. must be treated with surgical bypass surgery. Since stenting requires patients to take anti-platelet drugs, patients who are allergic to this drug should also consider bypass surgery. However, if the patient has respiratory disease, it may be dangerous to receive general anesthesia and is not a candidate for conventional extracorporeal bypass, but rather for interventional treatment.