Ischemic heart disease shows gender differences, both in terms of clinical characteristics and pathophysiological mechanisms. It is still debated whether these characteristics influence the diagnostic and therapeutic approach and the outcomes in female patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Percutaneous coronary intervention in women has been shown to be feasible, safe and effective as it is in men throughout the whole clinical spectrum of ischemic syndromes. There is a solid scientific evidence of a different diagnostic and therapeutic approach to women suffering from ischemic heart disease compared to men, with a tendency to undertreat female patients, despite the worst risk profile at presentation. Women, in fact, less frequently undergo coronary angiography and receive antiplatelet, antithrombotic or anti-ischemic drugs. They experience more bleedings than men after administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Gender differences, therefore, affect more the clinical than the interventional approach. At least in part, this is due to the fact that current guidelines are based on a male model of diagnostics. It would be desirable to analyze cohorts of patients in whom the percentage of individuals of both sexes will be equally represented, or rather, exclusively female cohorts in order to formulate more targeted diagnostic and therapeutic indications.