Key result
Various imaging methodologies are available and strongly suggested to assess bioresorbable vascular scaffolds after implantation and at follow-up to guarantee optimal implantation and reduce thrombosis risk.
This review analyzes different imaging methodologies available to assess bioresorbable vascular scaffolds after implantation and at follow-up to mitigate the risk of scaffold thrombosis.
Reinforces the critical role of intravascular imaging in mitigating bioresorbable scaffold thrombosis; leaves open.
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) represent a novel approach for coronary revascularization offering several advantages as compared to current generation DES, potentially reducing rate of late adverse events and avoiding permanent vessel caging. Nevertheless, safety concerns have been raised for an increased risk of scaffold thrombosis (ScT) in both early and late phases, probably related to a suboptimal scaffold implantation. In this context, the use of different imaging methodologies has been strongly suggested in order to guarantee an optimal implantation. We herein analyze the different imaging methodologies available to assess BRS after implantation and at follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pernigotti et al. (2017) conducted a review in Coronary revascularization. Imaging methodologies to assess bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) was evaluated. Various imaging methodologies are available and strongly suggested to assess bioresorbable vascular scaffolds after implantation and at follow-up to guarantee optimal implantation and reduce thrombosis risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: