XIENCE™ Family of Drug-Eluting Stents

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

Clinical Evidence in Long Lesions with 48 mm XIENCE™ Stent

The XIENCE Skypoint™ 48 mm Stent is designed so that interventional cardiologists (ICs) can use only one stent in long coronary lesions. Diffuse coronary disease—with long lesions—can otherwise be challenging when employing multiple stents.2

 XIENCE Skypoint 48-mm Stent for long lesions can preclude the need for multiple overlapping stents.

Advantages in Using a Single Long Stent2

There are several advantages in using a single long stent vs several shorter stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI):

  • Reduces procedure time, making PCIs faster and more efficient
  • Reduces radiation and fluoroscopy time
  • Reduces use of contrast

Use of a single longer stent, vs 2 shorter stents, also reduces overlap. In fact, stent overlap has been reported in as many as 30% of patients undergoing PCI. Overlapping stents may also result in:

  • Increased risk of stent fracture3
  • Higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR)2

XIENCE Skypoint™ Stent also offers a new 4.0 x 48mm stent size to help treat larger vessels where there may be diffuse disease.

XIENCE™ 48 mm Stent Safety Outcomes

Long XIENCE™ Stents continue the tradition of excellent XIENCE™ safety outcomes. XIENCE™ 48 mm Stents demonstrate impressive outcomes in long lesions:

  • 100% device success (mean stented length 58 mm)4
  • 0.1% definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) 24 hours post-procedure (mean stented length 39.3 mm)5

Data from XIENCE Prime™ Stent & XIENCE Xpedition™ Stent

In long lesions, XIENCE 48-mm stents achieved 100% device success.
In long lesions, 48-mm stents achieved 0.1% acute definite or probable stent thrombosis.

Long-Term Outcomes in Long, Complex Lesions4

When using XIENCE™ 48 mm Stents in long, complex lesions, there were low rates of myocardial infarction (MI), TLR, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) 1 year after the index procedure. In this analysis the mean stented length was 58 mm.

When treating long, complex lesions, XIENCE Stent 1-year data showed 0.8% MI, 0.8% TLR, and 3.3% MACE rates.

Consistent Outcomes with Moderate / Long Length Stents6

Additional data supported the safety of XIENCE™ Stent in long lesions, with findings displaying consistent performance between moderate length lesions and long lesions.

 Moderate Length Lesions
(> 24 mm to < 35 mm)
482 patients
Long Length Lesions
(> 35 mm)
323 patients
p value
TLF at 1 Year10%8.9%p = 0.63
Mean Lesion Length28.1 mm47.1 mmp < 0.0001

Lower Revascularization in Chronic Total Occlusions (CTO)7

Among the 3-year outcomes of the PRISON-IV trial, the XIENCE™ Stent resulted in significantly lower TLR rates of 4.2% compared to 11.5% with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). The population encompassed patients with complex CTOs.

  • Total stented length with XIENCE™ Stent: 52.3 mm
  • Total stented length with BP-SES: 52.4 mm
When treating CTOs in long lesions, XIENCE Stent has significantly lower target lesion revascularization rate of 4.2% vs 11.5% with BP-SES.

Excellent Long-Term Outcomes at 5 Years8

The 5-year data from the IVUS-XPL study reveal excellent XIENCE™ Stent outcomes in long lesion treatment guided by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Study results show low event rates with long lesions treated with long stents.

  • Mean lesion length: 35.1 mm
  • Total stented length: 39.4 mm

Note the low rates of both definite or probable ST (0.3%) and MACE (5.6%).

XIENCE Stent has much lower platelet adhesion compared to Synergy, Orsiro, Ultimaster, Onyx, and BioFreedom drug-eluting stents
Manuals & Technical Resources

Manuals & Technical Resources

Order Cardiovascular Products

Cardiovascular Products

Customer Service

Customer Service

 XIENCE™ Stent safety outcomes include data on XIENCE Prime™ Stent & XIENCE Xpedition™ Stent.


  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. Jurado-Román A, et al. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019;20(8):681-686.
  3. Chinikar M, et al. Current Cardiol Rev. 2014;10:349-354.
  4. Tan CK, et al. Herz. 2019;44:419-424
  5. Hong SFJ, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2016;9:1438-1446.
  6. Bouras G, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;89(6):984-991.
  7. Zivelonghi C, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17):1747-1749. Teeuwen K, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(2):133-143.
  8. Hong SJ, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(1):62-71.

MAT-2107575 v1.0