Hello. Thank you for your question and welcome to HCM. I carefully read your query.
Everything in medicine, from pharmacological to procedural interventions have their risks. Now, if the operator's first recommendation was to pursue the bypass road, then I would agree, because we have certain scoring systems which help our everyday benefit/risk decisions.
Bare metal stents have a probability of 16% to develop in-stent narrowing, and drug eluting stents have a probability of 4% to develop this event. The more stents are put in coronary arteries, the greater the risk of developing in-stent narrowing. Also, the lesser the diameter of the stent, the greater the risk of developing this event. All the patients that we recommend for coronary
artery bypass grafting (CABG) can be resolved with stents. But, it is this risk that make us recommend CABG.
On the other hand, CABG patients have higher risk perioperatively, but the long-standing benefits in survival, symptom relief and quality of life are close between the two procedures, and better with CABG, when there are several blockages in the coronary arteries, because of the risks I explained above. Although, I cannot be clear-cut or the decision-maker to whether one procedure is better than the other in this case, as I have not seen the angiogram film, I would suggest you to follow your invasive cardiologist's advice.
I hope I was helpful with my answer. Good luck.
Take care,
Dr. Meriton