OBJECTIVES: We examined the average number of reinterventions, average reintervention costs (ARC), and the average total costs (ATC) for the latest iteration of a heparin-bonded ePTFE Stent-Graft versus a bare metal stent (BMS) in patients treated for atherosclerotic disease of the superficial femoral artery (SFA). ATC includes costs for the initial implant, reinterventions, and follow-up care. METHODS: As previously reported by Saxon (2011) and Ansel (2011), two independent clinical studies of the Stent-Graft were recently completed. One-year results from the multicenter, single-arm, VIPER trial were compared to the one-year results of the BMS arm from the three-year, multicenter, randomized VIBRANT trial. The Stent-Graft used in the VIPER trial is the latest iteration of the device in use today. Patient characteristics were similar in both trials. Cost data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was used to estimate ARC and ATC for all patients, and secondarily, for patients oversized ≤20% at the proximal edge of the Stent-Graft (instructions for use recommend 5-20% oversizing).   RESULTS: The Stent-Graft group trended toward fewer reinterventions per patient than the BMS group (0.36 vs. 0.63, P=0.15), lower ARC ($3,143 vs. $4,346, P=0.38), and higher ATC ($16,482 vs. $14,987, P=0.36) through one year follow-up. Patients oversized ≤20% trended toward fewer reinterventions per patient (0.21 vs. 0.63, P=0.08), lower ARC ($1,588 vs. $4,346, P=0.05), which was statistically significant, and lower ATC ($14,524 vs. $14,987, P=0.78) versus the BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the comparison of one-year follow up data, the Stent-Graft trended toward reducing reinterventions and ARC for all patients being treated for atherosclerotic SFA disease compared to BMS. When oversized ≤20% at the proximal edge, the Stent-Graft reduced ARC (statistically significant finding) and trended toward reducing reinterventions and ATC. Long-term follow up will be needed to measure the benefits beyond one year for all patients.