Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology—eg, “stable coronary artery disease” (CAD), “stable ischemic heart disease,” and “chronic coronary syndromes” (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with “acute coronary syndromes” (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term “chronic coronary disease.” An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms “coronary” and ‘disease’, often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischemia that fosters conceptual clarity a

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology—eg, “stable coronary artery disease” (CAD), “stable ischemic heart disease,” and “chronic coronary syndromes” (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with “acute coronary syndromes” (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term “chronic coronary disease.” An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms “coronary” and ‘disease’, often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischemia that fosters conceptual clarity a

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology—eg, “stable coronary artery disease” (CAD), “stable ischemic heart disease,” and “chronic coronary syndromes” (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with “acute coronary syndromes” (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term “chronic coronary disease.” An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms “coronary” and ‘disease’, often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischemia that fosters conceptual clarity a

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology—eg, “stable coronary artery disease” (CAD), “stable ischemic heart disease,” and “chronic coronary syndromes” (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with “acute coronary syndromes” (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term “chronic coronary disease.” An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms “coronary” and ‘disease’, often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischemia that fosters conceptual clarity a