XIENCE™ Family of Drug-Eluting Stents

The World's Leading Drug-Eluting Stents (DES), with Unparalleled Clinical Outcomes¹

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

  18% of patients undergoing an angiogram have a CTO
  40% of PCI are of high bleeding risk
  2% of patients receiving a stent 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

 18% of patients undergoing an angiogram have a CTO
 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.

 left main chart
 CTO chart
 Bifurcations chart
 Diabetes chart
 STEMI chart
Short DAPT chart

* 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

Fatal Myocardial Infarction

  myocardial infarction chart comparison

XIENCE™ results in an 89% risk reduction

Primary Endpoint: Cardiac Death

  primary endpoint comparison chart

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

Myocardial InfarctionBMS (%)DES (%)p value (non-adjusted)p value (adjusted)

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

Order 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