Cardiovascular disease is among the leading causes of death worldwide and coronary artery disease (CAD) is the major underlying culprit. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has proven to be beneficial to patients with acute coronary syndrome, yet its benefit to stable CAD patients is more nuanced. Indeed, unnecessary PCI procedures for stable CAD patients have contributed to wasteful health spending and, in certain cases, patient harm. In this paper, we model both clinical ambiguity and conflicts of interest in interventional cardiology decision-making. Among other results, we show the PCI usage may be non-monotonic in the conflict-of-interest level. Based on the Joint work with Tinglong Dai and Chao-Wei Hwang (both with John-Hopkins Univ.).