Why the study?
Large RCTs of early-generation bioresorbable vascular scaffolds demonstrated issues translating theoretical benefits into clinical practice, warranting a review of outcomes and newer technological advances.
Does bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) reduce event rates compared to traditional metallic drug-eluting stents (DES)?
Does bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) reduce event rates compared to traditional metallic drug-eluting stents (DES)?
BVS technology is not yet ready for routine clinical use and requires improved scaffold technology and further testing against metallic DES in large-scale RCTs.
Avoid routine BVS use with current technology; leaves open whether improved scaffolds can outperform metallic DES in new RCTs.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is a promising technology with clear theoretical benefits. Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the early generation of this technology, however, demonstrated issues translating these benefits from the abstract into the clinical realm. This review covers the outcomes beginning with the first-generation scaffolds and provides updates on advances made with newer technologies and evolved approaches to platform delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: Pooled individual patient data from the ABSORB studies with 5-year follow-up was published in early 2025, showing higher event rates in the BVS group driven by events in the first three years of follow-up. Events after three years were the same or lower compared to traditional metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). BVS technology is not yet ready for clinical primetime. However, there is need for improved scaffold technology and new BVS will again need to be tested against metallic DES in large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akinmolayemi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: