IMPORTANCE: The clinical equipoise tagging the real benefits of calcium channels blockers relegates them to second and/or third line of anti-hypertensive therapies in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. However, their specific mechanisms of actions could offer great benefits to a poorly perfused myocardium. While the need to address those persistent controversies from a genetic perspective is necessary, the preliminary steps is to establish a direct comparison of benefits with its preferred alternative, beta-blockers. This systematic review/meta-analysis, ascribed to a larger stream of research, aims at aggregating the effect of calcium channels blockers vs beta-blockers on specific long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). DATA SOURCE AND STUDY SELECTION: A search was conducted on Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane collaboration’s central register of controlled trials (January 1st, 1998 to August 31st ,2018) for randomized clinical trials comparing calcium channels blockers vs beta-blockers in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), assessing long-term cardiovascular outcomes such as myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization. Two independent reviewers conducted the data extraction on baseline characteristics, trials designs and interventions, comparators and outcomes of interest from retained manuscripts. Quality of evidence for retained trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and GRADE was used to rate the certainty in the evidence gathered. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Random effects risk ratio (RR) and 95% Cis were derived for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure and cardiovascular hospitalization. Secondary analysis by different strata (Mean years of follow up, percent of diabetic participants in trials, body mass index, sexe and ethnicity were also carried out. Eight published randomized clinical trials of 79474 patients (mean age, 64 years, mean follow up time, 3.6 years) were retained for analysis. Compared to beta-blockers or a beta-blockers-based treatment regimen, calcium channels blockers significantly reduced the risk of stroke by 13% (RR,0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.98], P = .017), even after stratified analysis. No difference was found in risk reduction for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization and heart failure. Calcium Channels blockers offer greater clinical benefits compared to beta-blockers in preventing stroke. However, the evidence is dubious for other cardiovascular outcomes. Perhaps, a novel approach of randomization for a comparative clinical trial of both drugs could warrant more grounded comparative evidence.