Background: The development of sirolimus‑eluting stents (SES) was an important step in treating coronary artery disease (CAD). SES could decrease the angiographic restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) as compared to bare‑metal stent (BMS) and drug‑eluting stent (DES). Nonetheless, there is scarce data regarding SES's outcomes in Egyptians receiving DESs. Objective: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of SES vs. Paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in treating CAD and identifying severe adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Patients and method: Data collected from 44 patients admitted to Cardiology Department of National Heart Institute from January 2004 and December 2005 and followed up for 3 months, who were scheduled to percutaneous intervention (PCI) due to severe angiographic stenosis (> 50 %) in a native coronary artery. Participants in this study were then divided into 2 groups: SES and PES groups. Results: The differences between both groups regarding the immediate angiographic outcomes like diameter of residual stenosis (DS%) and acute gain were non-significant. Stent characters including flexibility, deliverability, conformability and side branch preservation ability did not also show significant differences among groups. Similarly, no significant differences were found between both groups in the 3 months clinical follow up. Regarding the percentage of binary restenosis and the late luminal loss at follow-up angiography, both values were higher in group "B" than in group "A" but without a significant difference. Conclusion: We can conclude that it is better to utilize SES but not to the degree to recommend its utilization over the PES.