Intervention and bypass are two important tools in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Among them, stents, especially drug stents, as a latecomer, have been favored by many patients for their minimal invasiveness. According to the New York Times news on February 25, the number of patients receiving bypass in the United States in 2006 was about 365,000, down 1/3 from 10 years ago; while patients receiving interventional treatment surged all the way to about 1 million. Left main stem lesions: According to national and international guidelines, surgery is the first choice for left main stem lesions. This is because left main stem can be fatal in the event of blockage or restenosis. To minimize the risk, bypass is the best option. Three-branch lesion: The lesion has more vessels, and if interventional treatment is chosen, many stents have to be placed, which will increase the chances of restenosis and thrombosis significantly. Moreover, the financial burden on the patient is higher. Patients with cardiac insufficiency: These patients need complete revascularization to promote the recovery of ischemic myocardium, which is difficult to do with interventions. Patients with diabetes mellitus: The rate of restenosis in diabetic patients is high with normal stents, and with the short time since the introduction of pharmacological stents, there is no clear evidence that interventional therapy is more effective than bypass. Patients with post-coronary myocardial infarction complications: ventricular rupture, septal perforation, and mitral valve closure insufficiency must be treated with surgical bypass surgery. Patients allergic to anti-platelet drugs: Patients allergic to anti-platelet drugs, which are required for stenting, should also be considered for bypass surgery. “However, if the patient has respiratory disease, undergoing general anesthesia may be dangerous and is not a candidate for conventional extracorporeal bypass in favor of interventional treatment.”