Background: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have been known to improve the results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to be beneficial to clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The use of Bare metal stents (BMS) are limited due to the more in-stent restenosis (ISR) and re-PCI than drug-eluting stents (DES). This study was aimed to compare the safety and efficacy between BMS and DES with use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Methods: 1,125 acute MI patients who had abciximab or tirofiban during PCI and enrolled in Korean Acute MI Registry (KAMIR) were analyzed. Patients who received at least one DES (n=960) only were compared with patients who had at least one BMS (n=165) only. Results: The baseline clinical characteristics of both groups were not different. Angiographic findings were similar except that DES group involved more left anterior descending artery (43.3 % vs. 34.5 %, p=0.036) and left main artery (3.2 % vs. 0, p=0.016). Major bleeding rate (0.6 % vs. 0.7 %, p=0.862) were similar. At one-month, total major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were similar between groups. At 6 moth, total MACEs (25.6% vs. 17.6%, p=0.016) were significantly higher in BMS versus DES group. Re-PCI (11.0% vs. 6.9%, p=0.068) and target vessel revasculization (TLR) (5.5% vs. 3.1%, p=0.119) were higher in BMS versus DES group but not significant. At one-year, total MACEs (27.3% vs. 21.3%, p=0.085) were higher in BMS group but not significant. After adjusting factors which could affect one-year MACEs, BMS implantation (OR:1.86, 95% CI:1.02-3.42, p=0.045) were the independent predictors of one-year MACEs. Conclusion: Despite the use of Gp IIb/IIIa, patients with BMS implantation have a 1.9 times greater risk of developing one-year MACEs than patients with DES implantation.