The aim of this review was to summarize the concept of appropriate use criteria(AUC) regarding percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) and document AUC use and impact on clinical practice in Japan, in comparison with its application in the United States. AUC were originally developed to subjectively evaluate the indications and performance of various diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, including revascularization techniques. Over the years, application of AUC has significantly impacted patient selection for PCI in the United States, particularly in non-acute settings. After the broad implementation of AUC in 2009, the rate of inappropriate PCI decreased by half by 2014. The effect was further accentuated by incorporation of financial incentives(e.g., restriction of reimbursement for inappropriate procedures). On the other hand, when the United States-derived AUC were applied to Japanese patients undergoing elective PCI from 2008 to 2013, about one-third were classified as inappropriate, largely due to the perception gap between American and Japanese experts. For example, PCI for low-risk non-left atrial ascending artery lesion was more likely to be classified as appropriate by Japanese standards, and anatomical imaging with coronary computed tomography angiography was used relatively frequently in Japan, but no scenario within the current AUC includes this modality. To extrapolate the current AUC to Japan or any other region outside of the United States, these local discrepancies must be taken into consideration, and scenarios should be revised to reflect contemporary practice. Understanding the concept of AUC as well as its perception gap between different counties will result in the broader implementation of AUC, and lead to the quality improvement of patients’ care in the field of coronary intervention. The aim of this review was to summarize the concept of appropriate use criteria (AUC) regarding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and document AUC use and impact on clinical practice in Japan, in comparison with its application in the United States. AUC was Established to subjectively evaluate the indications and performance of various diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, including revascularization techniques. Over the years, application of AUC has significantly impacted patient selection for PCI in the United States, particularly in non-acute settings. After the broad implementation of AUC in 2009, the rate of inappropriate PCI decreased by half by 2014. The effect was further accentuated by incorporation of financial incentives (eg, restriction of reimbursement for inappropriate procedures). On the other hand, when the United States-derived AUC were applied to Japanese patients undergoing elective PCI from 2008 to 2013, about one-third were classified as inappropri ate, largely due to the perception gap between American and Japanese experts. For example, PCI for low-risk non-left atrial ascending artery lesion was more likely to be classified as appropriate by Japanese standards, and anatomical imaging with coronary computed tomography angiography was used more frequently in Japan, but no scenario within the current AUC includes this modality. To extrapolate the current AUC to Japan or any other region outside of the United States, these local discrepancies must be taken into consideration, and scenarios should be revised to reflect Understanding the concept of AUC as well as its perception gap between different counties will result in the broader implementation of AUC, and lead to the quality improvement of patients’ care in the field of coronary intervention.