The concept of myocardial viability is usually referred to areas of the myocardium, which show contractile dysfunction at rest and in which contractility is expected to improve after revascularization. The traditional paradigm states that an improvement in function after revascularization leads to improved health outcomes and that assessment of myocardial viability in patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction (ILVD) is a prerequisite for clinical decisions regarding treatment. A range of retrospective observational studies supported this \'viability hypothesis\'. However, data from prospective trials have diverged from earlier retrospective studies and challenge this hypothesis. Traditional binary viability assessment may oversimplify ILVD\'s complexity and the nuances of revascularization benefits. A conceptual shift from the traditional paradigm centred on the assessment of viability as a dichotomous variable to a more comprehensive approach encompassing a thorough understanding of ILVD\'s complex pathophysiology and the salutary effect of revascularization in the prevention of myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmias is required.

Patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction frequently undergo myocardial viability testing. The historical model presumes that those who have extensive areas of dysfunctional-yet-viable myocardium derive particular benefit from revascularization, whilst those without extensive viability do not. These suppositions rely on the theory of hibernation and are based on data of low quality: taking a dogmatic approach may therefore lead to patients being refused appropriate, prognostically important treatment. Recent data from a sub-study of the randomized STICH trial challenges these historical concepts, as the volume of viable myocardium failed to predict the effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting. Should the Heart Team now abandon viability testing, or are new paradigms needed in the way we interpret viability? This state-of-the-art review critically examines the evidence base for viability testing, focusing in particular on the presumed interactions between viability, functional recovery, revascularization and prognosis which underly the traditional model. We consider whether viability should relate solely to dysfunctional myocardium or be considered more broadly and explore wider uses of viability testingoutside of revascularization decision-making. Finally, we look forward to ongoing and future randomized trials, which will shape evidence-based clinical practice in the future.