This review provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of coronary artery stents, highlighting the transition from bare-metal to drug-eluting and bioresorbable technologies to address complications like restenosis and thrombosis.
Stent evolution continues to address thrombosis risks; leaves open optimal bioresorbable strategies pending randomized data.
Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Conventional balloon angioplasty is associated with high rates of complications such as coronary dissection and vessel recoil. The deployment of bare-metal stents (BMSs) can overcome these problems and achieve a better patency rate than simple balloon angioplasty. It has been shown that the stent design including structure platform, size, length, and strut thickness has a major influence on the clinical results. Even though angioplasty with BMS implantation is widely used in coronary interventions, the restenosis rate due to neointimal hyperplasia remains high. Therefore, drug-eluting stents (DESs) coated with anti-proliferative agents and polymers have been developed to reduce the restenosis rate and improve the clinical outcomes. Although the repeat revascularization rate of DESs is lower than that of BMSs, the long-term stent thrombosis rate is higher than for BMSs. Therefore, new and emerging generations of stents, in which, for example, thinner struts and bioresorbable polymers are used, are available for clinical use. However, there are only a limited number of clinical trials, in which these newer stents have been compared with BMSs and first- and second-generation DESs. The purpose of this review was to provide up-to-date information on the evolution of coronary artery stents from BMSs to DESs to bioresorbable stents (BRSs).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ho et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: