This review highlights the potential advantages and challenges of bioresorbable coronary scaffolds compared to permanent metallic stents in clinical practice.
Bioresorbable scaffolds warrant caution in practice; review leaves open their role versus metallic stents pending further trials.
Despite improvements in stent platform, polymer and drug elution, the permanent metallic stents have significant limitations as they distort vessel physiology, predispose to late thrombosis and may preclude surgical revascularization. Bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) technology has evolved over the last few years to overcome these drawbacks. Actually, different BRS are either available or under clinical and preclinical investigation. However, the use of BRS has largely been restricted to patients recruited into clinical trials with a relatively small number of 'real world' patients treated with these devices. Here, we highlight the potentialities of these devices, describe the evidence from the recent clinical trials and discuss the potential advantages, as well as challenges, that this novel technology may face in routine clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ielasi et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: