OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to investigate, the impact f drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. bare metal stent (BMS) implantation on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with real conditions on the occurrence of short-and long term, of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, need for repeat revascularization and clinical symptoms and death METHODS: Since March 1, 2006 to September 31, 2007 a total of 220 consecutive patients with novo lesions exclusively treated with DES unrestricted use vs. bare metal stents and 1 year a follow-up. In a cohort of patients with ischemic disease with indication of PCI (Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). The measure of effectiveness was compared in-hospital, 6-month, 1-year outcomes in 220 patients who underwent PCI using DES or BMS. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) included: death cardiac, myocardial infarction (MI), restenosis angiographic (RA), stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularisation (TLR) was defined as a repeated revascularisation procedure (either PCI or coronary bypass surgery), as the result of restenosis in the stented segment. Definite stent thrombosis was included defined as an acute coronary ischemic event associated to angiographic documentation of occlusion stent. Statistical Analysis: continuous variables are presented as mean+SD and were compared by means of the Student unpaired t-test. Categorical variables are presented as counts and percentages and compared by means of the Fisher exact test and Survival curve Kaplan Meier. RESULTS: Age BMS 60.01 +- 9.195 vs. DES 56+- 9.86 value p= 0.026, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, current smoking similar. Both groups were reasonably well matched for baseline characteristics with exception age. The Expulsion fraction FEVI BMS 49.64+- 13% vs. DES 52.19 +- 11.7%, stents implanted BMS 55.1% vs. DES 42.9% with a medium 1.5 stents for patient. Total MACE(Major adverse cardiac events): 10 (11.4%) vs. 31(24.2%) p=0.018, restenosis and need revascularization lesion target (TLR) BMS 13 (10.2%) vs. DES 2 (1.6%) p= 0.002, thrombosis 6 (4.7%) vs. 0 p= 0.039, angina 2(1.6%) vs. 6 (6.8%) p= 0.044, death 10 (7.8%) vs. 0 p= 0.007, test positive for ischemic 3 (2.3%) vs. 1(1.1%)  p= 518, required new revascularization BMS 3 (2.3%) vs. DES 3(3.4%) p= 0.64. The baseline and procedural characteristics reflect the complex patient’s. The survival free events were BMS 74% vs. DES 88 %, the difference in major adverse cardiac events was driven by the reduction in the need for repeat revascularization, defined as TVR in the DES group CONCLUSIONS:The lower differential effect in real-world outcomes, together with increased material use compared with the difference in major adverse cardiac events was driven by the reduction in the need for repeat revascularization, defined as TLR in the DES group