Key result
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds are linked to higher thrombosis vs new-generation DES despite similar CV death.
Why the study?
Despite initial promise to overcome DES limitations, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds face challenges including higher thrombosis rates, warranting an updated review of clinical and technical evidence.
Do bioresorbable vascular scaffolds improve clinical outcomes compared to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization?
Do bioresorbable vascular scaffolds improve clinical outcomes compared to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization?
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds are associated with higher thrombosis rates than new-generation drug-eluting stents, raising questions about their future utility in percutaneous coronary revascularization.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Higher scaffold thrombosis warrants clinical caution; leaves open whether refined bioresorbable platforms merit future trials.
Coronary angioplasty was first introduced in 1977. From plain old balloon angioplasty to the introduction of bare metal stents in 1986 and dual antiplatelet therapy in 1992 to much more later on. Due to the unacceptable rate of stent restenosis, drug eluting stents (DES) were introduced in 2000. The first generation showed an increase in late stent thrombosis which led to the introduction of the second generation DES with biocompatible or biodegradable polymers and thinner platforms. However very late stent thrombosis and late restenosis might still pose problems in the latter. Furthermore, there has been major debate regarding the impact of long-term vessel caging on normal vasomotricity and long-term positive remodeling. To resolve these issues, the bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) were launched into the real world in 2011, showing promising initial results. Multiple randomized trials, meta-analyses, and registries were performed, mainly with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System (Abbott Vascular, Chicago, IL, USA). This new technology is hindered by certain features, such as the BVS radial strength, its strut thickness, and the inflammatory process related to scaffold degradation. Moreover, there is known data indicating higher thrombosis rate with the Absorb BVS compared with the new generation of DES, despite similar cardiovascular death. In this review, we discuss the clinical procedural and technical evidence on BVS, with emphasis on their clinical impact. We finally tackle the future directions on device and procedural improvement while asking: is the bioresorbable technology still the way to the future?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azzi et al. (2021) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary revascularization. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) vs. New generation drug eluting stents (DES) was evaluated. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds are associated with a higher thrombosis rate compared with new generation drug-eluting stents, despite similar cardiovascular death rates.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: