Key result
Bioresorbable scaffold technology is limited by high risks of scaffold thrombosis and myocardial infarction due to low tensile and radial strengths, restricting its use to low-risk younger patients.
Bioresorbable scaffolds currently face challenges due to low tensile and radial strength leading to thrombosis, suggesting that reducing strut thickness alone may not improve long-term outcomes.
Supports cautious scaffold use in low-risk patients; leaves open whether next-generation designs can broaden indications.
Bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) technology has currently fallen into disrepute because of inordinately high risk of scaffold thrombosis and post-procedure myocardial infarction. Low tensile and radial strengths of polymeric BRS contributing to improper strut embedment have been identified as major correlates of poor outcomes following BRS implantation. Magnesium has a better tensile/radial strength compared with polymeric BRS but it is still far lower than cobalt-chromium. Newers innovations utilizing alteration in polymer composition and orientation or even newer polymers have focused on attempts to reduce strut thickness but may have little effect on tensile/radial strength of finished product and therefore may not impact the BRS outcome on long run. Currently, newer generation BRS usage may be restricted to suitable low risk younger patients with proper vessel preparation and application of technique.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sundeep Mishra (2017) conducted a review in Bioresorbable scaffold implantation. Bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) was evaluated. Bioresorbable scaffold technology is limited by high risks of scaffold thrombosis and myocardial infarction due to low tensile and radial strengths, restricting its use to low-risk younger patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: