OBJECTIVES: To identify the differences in the number of restenosis after the placement of sirolimus-eluting stent vs. zotarolimus-eluting stent and measure their related costs. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify meta-analysis or randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared sirolimus-eluting (SES) and zotarolimus-eluting (ZES) stents. The clinical outcome of interest was angiographic restenosis after stent placement given that this is a surrogate ending point that may predict late mortality. The results of the SORT OUT III trial with 2,333 patients were used which demonstrated that SES offered a lower rate of restenosis vs ZES (0.25% vs 1.25%) (HR: 4.62; 95 CI, 1.33 – 16.1, p=0.02) (Lassen, 2008).  The perspective is from a private payer in Brazil. Local guidelines for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies were followed (Vianna, 2007). A decision model was built in Excel. Resource usage was raised in a panel with hospitals and valued by micro-costing based on public sources (CBHPM 5th edition, PROAHSA, Brasíndice and SIMPRO). Only direct costs were considered and reported in 2010 Brazilian Reais (USD1=R$1.75). Discount rate was not applied given the 1-year horizon of the study. A 500,000 cohort was taken for a revascularization incidence of 932/100,000 (Ryen, 2009). A one-way sensitivity analyses was performed. RESULTS: Based on our model SES patients had fewer cases of restenosis vs ZES (12 vs 58).Total cost for the SES group was 1.87% below the one found in the ZES group (R$ 29,008 vs R$ 29,559). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest SES patients had a risk reduction of restenosis compared with ZES patients. Besides SES offer a 1.87% potential reduction in costs.