OBJECTIVES: To assess if there are differences in the number of restenosis after the placement of sirolimus-eluting stent vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent and their related costs. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify either meta-analysis or randomized clinical trials (RCT) which compared sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). The outcome of interest was angiographic restenosis after stent placement since this is an important surrogate indicator that may predict late mortality. We decided to model the results of the meta-analysis that evaluated 6 RCTs and comprised 3`669 patients which concluded that angiographic restenosis was less frequently in patients in the SES (9.3%) vs. PES (13.1%) (Kastrati, 2005). An analytic-decision model was developed according to local guidelines (Vianna, 2007) and the Brazilian payer’s perspective. Resource usage was raised in a panel with hospitals. A micro-costing technique was applied. Unit costs were based on published sources (CBHPM 5th, PROAHSA, Brasíndice and SIMPRO) and reported in 2010 Brazilian Reais (USD 1 = R$ 1.75). Only direct medical costs were considered. Time horizon was one year, so discounting was not applied. A 100,000 cohort was assumed considering a revascularization incidence of 932/100,000 (Ryen, 2009). A one-way sensitivity analyses was performed. RESULTS: In our hypothetical cohort SES patients had fewer cases of restenosis (86 vs. 122) when compared with PES patients. Due to that better outcome, total cost for the SES group was lower to the one found in the PES group (R$ 31,627 vs. R$ 34,127). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest SES patients had a 29% risk reduction of restenosis compared with PES patients. SES may also offer a 7.32% potential reduction in costs for the payer.