Why the study?
Do bioresorbable scaffolds provide clinical benefits over metallic drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary intervention?
Do bioresorbable scaffolds provide clinical benefits over metallic drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary intervention?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
While first-generation bioresorbable scaffolds face manufacturing and clinical limitations, ongoing development of thinner-strut devices aims to fulfill their theoretical benefits in coronary intervention.
Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) represent a novel paradigm in the 40-year history of interventional cardiology. Restoration of cyclic pulsatility and physiologic vasomotion, adaptive vascular remodeling, plaque regression, and removal of the trigger for late adverse events are expected BRS benefits over current metallic drug-eluting stents. However, first-generation BRS devices have significant manufacturing limitations and rely on optimal implantation technique to avoid experiencing an excess of clinical events. There are currently at least 22 BRS devices in different stages of development, including many trials of device iterations with thinner (<150 μm) struts than first-generation BRS. This article reviews the outcomes of commercially available and potentially upcoming BRS, focusing on the most recent stages of clinical development and future directions for each scaffold type.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davide Capodanno (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: