This friend, I can say with certainty, “You should not have a stent, at least not now, it will not do you any good.” The degree of stenosis in a coronary vessel is directly proportional to the degree of risk! In clinical practice, if the stenosis site is not considered and judged by stenosis alone, coronary stenosis up to 50% can be diagnosed as coronary artery disease, 75% or more needs to be considered for stenting (combined with the presence or absence of symptoms and myocardial ischemia), and 90% or more is severe stenosis, where adverse events may occur at any time and can be stented for emergency treatment. Although the patient’s blood flow is affected, there is no objective fact of myocardial ischemia, so the risk is not high. The patient can take oral aspirin and statin for control and improve the dietary principle, and then look for his own causative factors and carry out active and effective treatment. Why do you say “there is no benefit for this patient to have a stent?” First of all, we need to clarify that “stent has no therapeutic effect”. Patients who are suitable for stent implantation have a very high degree of stenosis and the objective fact of myocardial ischemia, and by implanting stents in the stenotic area, these patients can forcibly open the severely occluded blood vessels and make them unobstructed. However, since the stenosis is not in one place and the cause of the stenosis is not removed, the patient will still take medication after the stent, and if the stent is not well controlled, the stenosis will be restenosed soon and a second stent will be needed, so the stent can only prop up the highest degree of stenosis in the patient’s blood vessel, which is only a temporary recovery and relief from the overall point of view. This patient’s stenosis was already not high (60%), and there was no myocardial ischemia yet, so if the stent was implanted immediately, there would be no improvement for the patient, who would continue to take medication, control his diet, and continue to stent over time, the only difference might be that the position of the stent would change in the future, with no change in the result, but spending unjust money, and needing to suffer, which is really more harm than good. The description of the patient’s condition allows us to make a certain degree of speculation! The patient himself is not very old, then his degree of atherosclerosis should not be high, the special nature of his occupation ensures that he rarely socialize, this kind of people according to common sense actually have a low chance of suffering from coronary heart disease, but as a member of modern society, many of our closely related things will change with its changes, the cause of coronary heart disease is also the same. Patients sit in the office for a long time, which seems to be a kind of enjoyment, but if they do not pay attention to activity and exercise, it is likely to lead to changes in spinal curvature and a series of degenerative lesions, which should not be guessed before imaging, but if it is true as I said, then the patient’s nerves will be affected by it, which in turn will cause blood vessels to spasm, causing myocardial ischemia and accelerating the formation of plaques, at which time We must treat the cause in a timely manner to get to the root of the problem, and the sooner the prognosis the better. This patient, unless the coronary artery disease was caused by a spinal lesion and was treated in a timely manner, would not be able to fight to the death, as normal, regardless of medication, stents or bypass.