Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review shows the advancements in bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease, suggesting promising innovations for future treatments.
Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) represent a transformative paradigm in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD), aiming to provide temporary vessel support and then degrade completely, thereby leaving nothing behind. This approach seeks to overcome the long‐term limitations of permanent metallic drug‐eluting stents (DES), such as chronic inflammation and late stent thrombosis. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the BRS field, from fundamental materials science to evolving clinical evidence and future innovations. We first trace the historical evolution, including the pioneering concepts and the critical lessons learned from the clinical setbacks of the first‐generation absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), which highlighted the challenges of strut thickness, material properties, and implantation technique. We then delve into the current status and distinct challenges of the two primary platforms: biodegradable polymeric scaffolds (BDPS) and biodegradable metallic scaffolds (BDMS), covering magnesium‐, iron‐, and zinc‐based systems. Key technological advancements aimed at overcoming these challenges, including innovations in materials, advanced manufacturing like three‐dimensional (3D) printing, and multifunctional surface coatings, are detailed. Furthermore, we explore the future frontier of bioresorbable electronic stents (BES), which integrate therapeutic intervention with diagnostic monitoring. While BRS technology has not yet supplanted DES as a universal standard, it holds significant promise for specific patient populations. The field is rapidly advancing toward intelligent, temporary healing platforms poised to redefine coronary intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matsuda et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: