If that risk is going to be 1/2 of a percent per year for life (or at least for, say, a decade) - what then? No reduction in restenosis rate is worth that.
I disagree. What matters in death rate, not late thrombosis rate. And if 0.75% of BMS patients are dying per year from silent restenosis then the DES is the better device. Also, if the thrombosis is preventable, but the restenosis is not. Or if patients getting restenosis fixed by CABG die on the operating table at 2%, ... .
My point here is that somehow the named devil is, by definition, worse than the unnamed. I've seen more than one study/paper that effectively censored patients upon restenosis. If they died 3 days later as a result of CABG, they didn't count as a death against BMS.
Market Data 
Markets 
