Coronary angiography has been the gold standard for decades for the evaluation of coronary artery disease. Although it offers the best overview of coronary artery anatomy, it has been known to underestimate the amount and severity of coronary artery lesions. This is probably due to the method being based on luminography, with the evaluation of the seat of coronary artery disease, the vessel wall, based on deduction. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) provides the investigator with the possibility of direct inspection of the vessel lumen as well as the vessel wall independently of vessel tortuosity, vessel overlap and ostial position. Thus, equivocal angiographically imaged vessels can be investigated by supplementing coronary angiography with IVUS. By guiding percutaneous coronary intervention with IVUS and angiography, a lower target vessel revascularisation rate can be expected, presumably due to the more physiologically correct device sizing possible. It seems that although IVUS guidance represents an incremental cost, long-term costs are reduced due to the lower revascularisation rates. Which lesions to guide by IVUS and angiography and which can be guided by angiography alone has still not been clarified in randomised trials.