One of the most widely accepted forms of treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD) is the implementation of stents into the vessel. This area of research is constantly evolving, ranging from baremetal stents through drug-eluting stents and, more recently, approaching bioresorbable stents and polymerfree stents. This article reviews the evolution of all these devices and emphasizes how they might be further evolved to provide an optimal coronary stent and overcome unsolved challenges in stent development. We thoroughly evaluated a number of published studies in order to advance coronary stent technologies. Additionally, we looked for various literature that highlighted the inadequacies of the coronary stents that are currently available and how they might be modified to create the optimum coronary stent. Coronary stents have significantly improved clinical outcomes in interventional cardiology, but there are still a number of drawbacks, including an persisted risk of thrombosis due to endothelial injury and in-stent restenosis. Gene eluting stents (GES) and customized coronary stents with self-reporting stent sensors are appealing alternatives to existing stent approaches. Considering the adequacy of these gene eluting stents (GES), customized coronary stents produced by novel 4D printing technologies and integrated self-reporting stent sensors should be assumed for anticipating future advancements to optimal coronary stent devices; however, more interventional evidence is required to determine the future prospects of these stent innovations.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is exacerbating the worldwide healthcare crisis. The pandemic has had an impact on nearly every system of our body. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave immediate authorization of several vaccines to avoid critical COVID-19 outcomes following the rapid spread of the COVID-19. There have only been a few cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination-induced immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) so far. There should be enough information to identify whether some vaccination adverse effects, such as ITP, are caused by the vaccine. This study aims to determine how common ITP occurs after receiving the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, as well as gender, age, symptoms, biomarkers, predicted outcomes, and sequelae. We looked at a number of research and compiled the best evidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia currently available. To find the recommended reporting items, the search technique included keywords like "Immune thrombocytopenia," "COVID-19," "SARS-CoV-2," and "Vaccination." The search results were grouped using Boolean operators ("OR," "AND").

Due to the rapid development of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited the authorization of immunizations to counteract life-threatening COVID-19 effects. COVID-19 immunization was seen as an essential component of surviving endemically with COVID-19. Although there were no major adverse event reports that mandated an early authorization of the mass vaccination approval in initial studies, a few significant adverse events were reported after real-world usage. The most prevalent adverse events are regional reactions, such as discomfort at the injection site. Anaphylactic shock and acute responses were quite infrequent. Current evidence strongly convince the community that the advantages of immunization outweigh the risks.The review investigates the potential adverse reaction in the form of myocarditis caused by the COVID-19 vaccine. Age, sexuality, vaccination type, clinical manifestations, and diagnostic modalities were among the confounding factors associated with vaccine-induced myocarditis. This picture depicts COVID-19 immunization-induced myocarditis and the treatment options available to practitioners. Further evaluation is needed to establish the underlying cause of this association. We compiled the most recent data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced myocarditis after reviewing available research. Information sources including PubMed and Google Scholar were evaluated retrospectively.