There is no evidence that the indications for myocardial revascularization differ between patients with and without diabetes. Accepted indications include stable angina that cannot be adequately managed by medication, acute coronary syndromes, severely reduced left ventricular (LV) function due to coronary artery disease, left main stenosis, and advanced coronary artery disease causing substantial inducible ischemia. The recent ISCHEMIA trial challenged the criterion of ischemia. With respect to its primary endpoint, ISCHEMIA showed no benefit of an invasive strategy with systematic myocardial revascularization in patients with stable angina and moderate-to-severe ischemia compared with a conservative strategy. However, myocardial revascularization resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in angina and an improvement in quality of life. There was a significant reduction in prognostically relevant spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in the long term, which came at the cost of an increased rate of peri-interventional MI that was of minor prognostic relevance. The risk profile and number of patients included in the ISCHEMIA trial, as well as the duration of follow-up, are not sufficient to show that the lower incidence of spontaneous infarcts improved survival. In ISCHEMIA, there was no heterogeneity in treatment effect depending on diabetes.