Key result
Bioresorbable scaffolds offer physiological advantages over metallic stents, but key clinical challenges remain.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Current generation of drug-eluting stents has significantly improved the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention by substantially reducing in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis. However, a potential limitation of these stents is the permanent presence of a metallic foreign body within the artery, which may cause vascular inflammation, restenosis, thrombosis, and neoatherosclerosis. The permanent stents also indefinitely impair the physiological vasomotor function of the vessel and future potential of grafting the stented segment. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) have the potential to overcome these limitations as they provide temporary scaffolding and then disappear, liberating the treated vessel from its cage and restoring pulsatility, cyclical strain, physiological shear stress, and mechanotransduction. While a number of BRSs are under development, two devices with substantial clinical data have already received a Conformité Européenne marking. This review article presents the current status of these devices and evaluates the challenges that need to be overcome before BRSs can become the workhorse device in coronary intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iqbal et al. (2013) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease. Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. Drug-eluting stents was evaluated. Bioresorbable scaffolds have the potential to overcome limitations of permanent metallic stents by providing temporary scaffolding and restoring vessel physiology, though clinical challenges remain.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: