Background Although coronary stenting has decreased the high restenosis rate associated with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of chronic total occlusions (CTOs), the results are still less satisfactory than those found in nonoccluded lesions, at least as reported with the Palmaz-Schatz stent. The present work compares the restenosis rate of other stent designs with that of the Palmaz-Schatz stent. Methods We studied the long-term angiographic outcome of 120 CTOs successfully recanalized with balloon-expandable stents and without concomitant debulking techniques. Angiographic follow-up and full quantitative coronary angiography analysis was prospectively performed in all patients. Three different stent designs were compared: Palmaz-Schatz (n = 47), coil (n = 24), and multicellular (n = 49). Particular attention was paid to their performance in vessels of 3 mm or less and greater than 3 mm in diameter. Restenosis was defined as a 50% or greater diameter stenosis at follow-up. Results Multicellular stents were implanted more frequently in the left anterior descending artery and in patients with multivessel disease. No other significant differences in clinical or angiographic baseline characteristics, including vessel size, were noted between groups. At follow-up, multicellular stents presented a lower restenosis rate (22% vs 36% and 58% in the Palmaz-Schatz and coil stent groups, respectively; P = .01 ) and larger minimal luminal diameters (1.92 ± 0.85 mm vs 1.73 ± 0.98 and 1.38 ± 0.83 mm in the Palmaz-Schatz and coil stent groups, respectively; P = 0.0). The superiority of the multicellular stent design resulted from a lower restenosis rate in vessels of 3.0 mm or less in diameter (20% vs 47% and 79% in the Palmaz-Schatz and coil stent groups, respectively; P = .006). Conclusions These results suggest that the restenosis rate after stent recanalization of CTOs is influenced by both stent design and vessel size and may indicate a superiority of multicellular over Palmaz-Schatz and coil stent designs for this purpose. (Am Heart J 1999;138:675-80.)