This study is based on the comparison between management versus PCI in patients with CAD. The prevalence of the major forms of cardiovascular disease (CVDs), mostly coronary artery disease (CAD), has changed dramatically in recent years. Cardiovascular disorders are now the one of the major cause of death and disability in the world.1 In 2015, 17.7 million individuals died from cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is around 31% of all deaths worldwide; 7.4 million pass away from coronary artery disease (CAD), and 6.7 million expired from stroke. 2 CAD is also the major cause of death, count for 13.2% of all deaths globally.3 It is responsible for one-quarter of all deaths in the United States of America (USA). About 75 percent of people with CAD in European countries are between the ages of 27 and 34.4 CAD was accountable for 16% of all man deaths and 10% of all female deaths in the England.5 Sudden death and CAD have a close connection. According to post-mortem reports and death certificates, 62-85 percent of patients who expired outside of the clinic have a past of CAD.6 As per informations from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2011 to 2014, myocardial infraction affects 3.0% of the mature people in the USA (3.3 percent of males and 2.3 percent of females). An MI occurs every 40 seconds or so in the USA. In the USA, the mean age at 1st MI is 65.6 years for guys and 72.0 years for ladies.7   In this study the management and PCI are compared in patients with CVD.

Personnel health and safety concerns, CDC recommendations regarding infection control

Jaber WA, Lennon RJ, Mathew V, et al. Application of evidence-based medical therapy is associated with improved outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and is a valid quality indicator. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1473–78.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/.

Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, et al. ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2949-3003.

Green T, Baxter J, McClure S. Ageism and coronary angiography. British journal of cardiology 2014;21:7-8.

Feldman DN, Gade CL, Slotwiner AJ, et al. Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in patients of three age groups (80 years). Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:1334–39.

Sanchis-Gomar, F., Perez-Quilis, C., Leischik, R., & Lucia, A. (2016). Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. Annals of translational medicine, 4(13).

Floyd KC, Jayne JE, Kaplan AV, et al. Age-based differences of percutaneous coronary intervention in the DES era. J Intervent Cardiol. 2006;19:381–7.

Benjamin, E. J., Blaha, M. J., Chiuve, S. E., Cushman, M., Das, S. R., Deo, R., ... & Muntner, P. (2017). Heart disease and stroke statistics—2017 update: a report from the American Heart Association. circulation, 135(10), e146-e603.

Hueb W, Lopes NH, Gersh BJ, et al. Five-year follow-up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II). A randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115:1082–89.

Vlaar PJ, Lennon RJ, Rihal CS, et al. Drug-eluting stents in octogenarians: early and intermediate outcome. Am Heart J 2008;155,680–86.

Rao SV, Ou FS, Wang TY, et al. Trends in the Prevalence and Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Approaches to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol Int. 2008;1:379-86.

Rao SV, Cohen MG, Kandzari DE, et al. The transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention: Historical perspective, current concepts, and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2187–95.

Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 2009;157:132–40.

Seto TB, Taira DA, Berezin R, et al. Percutaneous coronary revascularization in elderly patients: impact on functional status and quality of life. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:955-8.

Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures BMJ 1997;315:1533.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 327: 557.

Günal A, Aengevaeren WRM, Gehlmann HR, et al. Outcome and quality of life one year after percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians. Neth Heart J 2008;16:117–22.

Kamiya M, Takayama M, Takano H, et al. Clinical outcome and quality of life of octogenarian patients following percutaneous coronary intervention or surgical coronary revascularization. Circulation 2007;71:847–54

Cassar S, Baldacchino DR. Quality of life after percutaneous coronary intervention: part 2. Crit Care 2012;19:1125–30.

Kaehler J, Koester R, Hamm CW, et al. Quality of life following percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2005;130:639–43.

Li R, Yan BP, Dong M, et al. Quality of life after percutaneous coronary intervention in the elderly with acute coronary syndrome. In J Cardiol 2012;155:90–6.

Yan B, Liu M, Lee V, et al. Benefits in quality of life after percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients [conference abstract]. European Society of Cardiology Congress, Munchen, Germany, August 2012:P2420.

Klein LW, Block RG, Brinidis RG, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry: development of a nomogram predictive of in-hospital mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:394– 402.