OBJECTIVES: This pilot study was to evaluate and compare drug eluting stent (DES) and bare metal stent (BMS) in 1) clinical outcome; 2) humanistic outcome; and 3) economic outcome, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: All patients undergo PCI in Prince of Wales Hospital during August 1 to October 31, 2009 were recruited. Clinical outcome was measured by the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which is defined as cardiac death, non-fatal MI and target lesion revascularization. An EQ-5D questionnaire was used to measure the baseline quality of life before the stent placement, and six months post PCI. Procedural cost including the instruments, medications and hospitalization, as well as all cardiac related follow-up for the first six months was recorded. Cost to reduce one MACE (ICER) and cost to gain one quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated to assess the cost-effectiveness of DES. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients (n=22 and n=28 for DES and BMS respectively) were enrolled into our study. MACE in 6 month was 5% in DES (n=1) versus 7% (n=2) in BMS respectively (p=0.701). In DES group, the utility score showed significant improvement in six months than baseline (0.92, IQR 0.80–1.00 vs. 0.69, IQR 0.22–0.77, p=0.001), while there were no significant improvement for BMS group (0.87, IQR 0.73–1.00 vs. 0.81, IQR 0.66–1.00, p=0.337). ICER calculated was HKD$17,112 and cost per QALY gained was HKD$142,600. six-month total medical cost was similar, HKD$92,440±58,566 for DES (median=$74231) versus $95,223±64,301 for BMS (median=$76475) respectively, p=0.875, the higher procedural cost of DES group was balanced by lower follow-up and hospitalization cost, when compared with BMS group. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of life of patient underwent placement with DES improved significantly and the use of DES were shown to be cost-effective. The 6-month total medical cost for DES and BMS were similar.