Coronary stents are one of the effective means of treating coronary heart disease, but people have different views on stents, some are doubtful, some are afraid, and some even reject them. In particular, there are many different types of stents, and the choice between drug-coated stents or metal bare stents is difficult for patients to choose because of the advantages and disadvantages of each, and they even have doubts about their doctors and hospitals for this reason. Today, I would like to share the results of a clinical study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a leading medical journal, in the hope that it will calm your inner tangle. This is a clinical study spanning 6 years. The general context of the study was the long-term effects of drug-coated stents and bare metal stents on patients, including the effects on patient mortality, recurrent infarction, revascularization, probability of in-stent restenosis, and quality of life, with no large trial data to support exactly which stent is more advantageous. A total of 9013 patients were enrolled in the study, with 4504 and 4509 receiving drug-coated stents and bare metal stents, respectively, with the vast majority (96%) of patients using everolimus or zotamox-coated stents. After 5 years of observation and follow-up, the probability of death and nonfatal spontaneous infarction was 16.6% and 17.1% in the drug stent and bare stent groups, respectively, a statistically significant difference, as well as no significant difference in quality-of-life assessment between the two groups. Sixteen and a half percent of patients in the drug stent group underwent revascularization therapy, compared with 19.8 percent in the bare stent group. From a statistical point of view, the probability of revascularization was still significantly lower in the drug stent group than in the bare stent group. These are the results from this large clinical study. In terms of the probability of revascularization, the drug stent was indeed better than the bare stent, but in other aspects, there was no major difference between the two, and the drug stent also had its own disadvantages, including more expensive, longer time of taking dual antiplatelet drugs, etc. Therefore, it can be said that there is no doubt about the effectiveness of both in unblocking narrowed coronary arteries and treating coronary heart disease; at the same time, we must realize that stent implantation is not a permanent solution, and patients need to strictly comply with medical prescriptions for secondary prevention after surgery, even so, there is still a certain probability of in-stent restenosis. Chinese herbal medicine has always played an important role in the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease, and several studies by the subject group have confirmed that Chinese herbal medicine has the effect of preventing in-stent stenosis and in-stent thrombosis. Therefore, if you are still struggling with whether to put in a stent or not and which kind of stent to put in, it is better to seek combined Chinese and Western medicine treatment in the early stage of the disease; if the disease has progressed to the point that a stent needs to be implanted, don’t be too torn, your doctor will give you the best advice according to your individual situation, and our traditional medicine can also play an important role in prevention and treatment after stenting.