Background Patients with small coronary lesions are at increased risk for repeat interventions after coronaryangioplasty and stenting.The efficacy of drug-eluting stents(DES)has been demonstrated to improve the outcomes ofthese patients and is a focus of interest.Currently,two platforms of DES are available(sirolimus-eluting stent(SES)andpaclitaxel-eluting stent(PES)).However,it has less been known that DES,SES vs PES,is superior for the treatment ofsmall coronary lesions.Methods In this retrospective study,87 consecutive patients with 151 lesions underwent implantation of coronary SES(n=68)and PES(n=83).Quantitative coronary angiography(QCA)was performed at the time of stent implantation andsubsequently at 8 months post-stenting.Small vessel disease was defined as lesions in vessels with diameter≥2.5 mmmeasured by QCA.Major adverse cardiac events(MACE)including death,thrombosis,nonfatal myocardial infarctionand target lesion revascularization(TLR)were compared between the two groups.Results Baseline clinical characteristics and angiographic parameters were similar between the two groups.At clinicaland angiographic follow-up,overall thrombosis rates were similar in both groups(0 vs 1.2%,P>0.05).The TLR andin-segment restenosis were not significantly different(19.1% vs 25.3%;10.3% vs 10.8%,P=0.365 and P=0.913respectively)between the two groups.The in-stent restenosis rate,however,was significantly higher in the PES group(4.4% vs 21.7%;P=0.002).Similarly,the late loss was significantly higher in the PES group((0.14±0.38)mm vs(0.494±0.61)mm;P<0.001).Conclusions In this small sample-size,non-randomized study,the data indicated that implantation of SES for thetreatment of patients with small coronary lesion showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared withPES implantation. Background Patients with small coronary lesions are at increased risk for repeat interventions after coronary angioplasty and stenting. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) has been demonstrated to improve the outcomes of the patients and is a focus of interest. Currently, two platforms of DES However, it has less been known that DES, SES vs PES, is superior for the treatment of small coronary lesions. Methods In this retrospective study, 87 consecutive Patients with 151 lesions underwent implantation of coronary SES (n = 68) and PES (n = 83). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed at the time of stent implantation and restored at 8 months post-stenting. lesions in vessels with diameter≥2.5 mmmeasured by QCA.Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were compared between the two groups .Results Baseline clinical characteristics and angiographic parameters were similar between the two groups. At clinicaland angiographic follow-up, overall thrombosis rates were similar in both groups (0 vs 1.2%, P> 0.05). The TLR and in-segment restenosis were not significantly different (19.1% vs 25.3%; 10.3% vs 10.8%, P = 0.365 and P = 0.913respectively) were significantly higher in the PES group (4.4% vs 21.7% ; P = 0.002) .Similarly, the late loss was significantly higher in the PES group ((0.14 ± 0.38) mm vs (0.494 ± 0.61) mm; P <0.001) .Conclusions In this small sample-size, non-randomized study , the data indicated that implantation of SES for the treatment of patients with small coronary lesion showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared withPES implantation.