OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the one-year costs related to cardiac adverse events post-index procedure discharge of Absorb and Xience. METHODS: Using resource use data from ABSORB II, which comprised of 501 patients randomized 2:1, one-year cardiac-related adverse event costs were calculated for the Absorb and Xience groups in 5 countries (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain). Unit costs from the perspective of the health system were taken from publicly available data sources (2014 level). Costs were calculated by lipid control and diabetic status, both at baseline. Resource use categories included hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and cardiac diagnostic tests. RESULTS: Mean country costs ranged between 1,140-1,880 Euros for Absorb and between 1,310-2,420 Euros for Xience. Mean country-specific per patient cost differences (Absorb minus Xience) were 170 Euros in France, 220 Euros in The Netherlands, 250 Euros in Germany, 420 Euros in Italy, and 540 Euros in Spain. Cost-savings were mainly attributable to the 1.5 unit reduction in mean number of subsequent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed in the Absorb arm compared to the Xience group (32 versus 47 per 1,000 population for all country data combined). Regardless of lipid status (lipids <2.0 mmol/l or lipids >2.0 mmol/l) and diabetic status at baseline, cardiac-related adverse event costs were reduced with Absorb. Patients with a lipid profile >2.0 mmol/l at baseline had mean country costs that ranged between 1,240-1,930 Euros for Absorb and between 1,380-2,540 Euros for Xience. Patients with diabetes at baseline had mean country costs that ranged between 1,250-1,920 Euros for Absorb and between 1,380-3,190 Euros for Xience. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest potential short term cost-savings with Absorb compared to Xience as a result of the reduced mean number of repeat PCIs. Future research is necessary to study total direct and indirect cost and long-term costs of each intervention.