Author's summary Myocardial ischemia plays a central role in the pathophysiology of angina pectoris. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guidance has evolved from anatomic stenosis to physiologic evidence of flow limitation. However, there is no evidence that one guidance is superior to another in improving clinical outcomes after PCI. Hallmarks of inducible ischemia such as electrocardiographic changes and wall motion abnormalities may be more clinically relevant as the reference standard to define ischemia-inducing lesions. Considering all available evidence, PCI should be considered as symptomatic therapy without altering the atherosclerotic process, and reserved for patients with inducible ischemia who are non-responsive to medical therapy.