Optimal Outcomes in Complex Patients

Reproducible outcomes are a proven part of XIENCE™ DES performance, delivering consistent patient safety with low complication rates. As a result, XIENCE™ Stent can treat lesions of any complexity in patients with a range of challenging comorbidities1

Increasingly Complex Patients Now Treated with PCI

Complex lesions and increasingly complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cases compose an ever-growing segment of the patient population, and stenting for these populations may expand in the future.

Even when patients are complex, choosing a stent shouldn't be. Given the best-in-class deliverability2 and the expanded treatment options3 of XIENCE Sierra™ this stent is an excellent choice for complex patients.4-7

20% of angiograms show CTO
40% of PCI are HBR
25% of stent patients have diabetes

XIENCE™ for CTO Lesions

XIENCE™ Stent, the world’s leading DES, is considered by industry experts to be the gold standard.8 It offers unmatched consistency and optimal acute outcomes in all types of patients and lesions, including complex cases.9,10

Xience Stent data show 99% device success for consistent outcomes in a range of patient types.
Xience Stent data show consistently low rates of 0.3%  acute definite ST

XIENCE™ Complex Patient Data: Consistently Low Stent Thrombosis Rates11-16

Results from a number of multicenter, randomized trials show that XIENCE™ Stent has low stent thrombosis (ST) rates, from 30 days to 5 years.

XIENCE Stent reveals low definite ST rates for left main patients: 1.1%  at 5 years.
XIENCE Stent reveals low ST rates for diabetes patients: 0.4% at 2 years.
XIENCE Stent reveals low ST rates for CTO patients: 0.7% at 1 year.
XIENCE Stent reveals low ST rates for STEMI patients: 2.0% at 5 years.
XIENCE Stent reveals low ST rates for patients with bifurcations: 0.5% at 3 years.
XIENCE Stent reveals low ST rates for short DAPT patients: 0.1% at 1 year.

* DAPT duration of 1 month

XIENCE™ in All-Comer Complex Patient Population

In a meta-analysis of all-comer complex patients, XIENCE™ Stent was shown to save lives compared to bare metal stents (BMS).17

2-Year Clinical Outcomes: XIENCE™ Stent vs Bare Metal Stents17

XIENCE Stent: 2-year fatal MI rate of 0.1% vs 0.8% for BMS
Fatal Myocardial Infarction

XIENCE™ results in an 89% risk reduction

XIENCE Stent: 2-year cardiac death rate of 2.7% vs 4.0% for BMS
Primary Endpoint: Cardiac Death

XIENCE™ Stent results in a 33% risk reduction vs BMS

Myocardial Infarction BMS (%) DES (%) p value (non-adjusted) p value (adjusted)
All 5.6% 4.0% 0.01 0.01
Non-fatal 4.8% 3.9% 0.12 0.12
Fatal 0.8% 0.1% 0.003 0.004

Adjusted for clinical syndrome (ie, acute coronary syndrome vs stable syndrome), history of diabetes mellitus, female sex, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and up to 1 year vs longer duration of DAPT.

“The benefit of [XIENCE™ Stents] occurred immediately after implantation and . . . also at long-term follow-up beyond 2 years.”
—Manel Sabaté, MD, on the EXAMINATION trial's lower event rates for XIENCE™ Stent versus bare metal stents in STEMI patients15

Detailed Data on Complex Patients, Complex Lesions

XIENCE™ Stent is increasingly used—and evaluated via clinical trials—in complex patients and when treating complex lesions. View more data on complex patients: short DAPT and AMI.

  • Manuals & Technical Resources
    Manuals & Technical Resources
  • Cardiovascular Products
    Cardiovascular Products
  • Customer Service
    Customer Service


  1. Zanchin C, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17):1665-1675. Serruys P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:136-146. Shiomi H, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:637-647. Kufner S, et al. Circulation. 2019:139(3):325-333. Palmerini T, et al. Lancet. 2013;379:1393-1402. Bangalore S, et al. Circulation. 2012;125:2873-2891. Bangalore S, et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(6):378-390. Pilgrim T, et al. Lancet. 2014;384:2111-2122. Pilgrim T, et al. Lancet. 2018;392:737-746. Data on file at Abbott.
  2. Tests performed and data on file at Abbott. Bench test data shows that XIENCE™ Sierra performed better in crossability and was not statistically different in trackability and pushability compared to Resolute Onyx and SYNERGY stents. Bench test results may not necessarily be indicative of clinical performance. Testing performed on XIENCE Sierra™ (3.0 x 18 mm, n=5), SYNERGY (3.0 x 20 mm, n=5), Resolute Onyx (3.0 x 18 mm, n=5). Catheter performance crossability test measures average force to cross a challenging lesion model.
  3. Instructions for Use – XIENCE Sierra™ – increased maximum expansion compared to XIENCE Alpine™ Stent.
  4. Shaw JE, et al. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;87:4-14.
  5. Fefer P, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(11):991-997.
  6. Capodanno D, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:1468–1483.
  7. Armstrong E, et al. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(3):581–589.
  8. Data on file at Abbott – XIENCE data includes 120 clinical trials, 10+ years of data, 125,000 patients studied, 15,000,000 implants as of Q1 2020 and is the most implanted DES worldwide.
  9. Saito S, et al. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(11):e1006-e1013. Saito S, et al. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2021-2031. Natsuaki M, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:181-190. Stone G, et al. TCT 2017 – ABSORB IV. Note: 99% is the lowest device success rate.
  10. Serruys P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:136-146. Zanchin C. et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17):1665-1675. Note: 0.3% is the highest definite stent thrombosis rate.
  11. Stone G, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1820-1830.
  12. Teeuwen K, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:133-143.
  13. Lam MK, et al. Am Heart J. 2015;169:69-77.
  14. Kaul U, et al. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:1194-1201.
  15. Sabaté M, et al. Lancet. 2016;387;357-366.
  16. Watanabe H, et al. JAMA. 2019;321(24):2414-2427.
  17. Valgimigli M, et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g6427.

MAT-2101789 v1.0



© 2021 Abbott. All Rights Reserved. Please read the Legal Notice for further details.

Unless otherwise specified, all product and service names appearing in this Internet site are trademarks owned by or licensed to Abbott, its subsidiaries or affiliates. No use of any Abbott trademark, trade name, or trade dress in this site may be made without the prior written authorization of Abbott, except to identify the product or services of the company.