Bioresorbable coronary scaffolds should disappear faster

Abstract

International audienc

Current status and future perspectives of bioresorbable stents in peripheral arterial disease

“…In peripheral arteries, it should be possible to evaluate stent patency with color flow Doppler ultrasound, although in clinical studies, stent bioresorption should be measured, which is best done with either IVUS or OCT. We tried to give an overview of cardiac lessons applicable to peripheral artery use of bioresorbable stents in Table VI. 8,[29][30][31][32][33][34] Present PAD studies remain relatively small and will probably never achieve the large numbers of patients that are common in cardiac trials. Yet, with a multicenter and possibly even multinational approach, reaching sufficient power should be a possibility.…”

Comparison of a Drug‐Free Early Programmed Dismantling PDLLA Bioresorbable Scaffold and a Metallic Stent in a Porcine Coronary Artery Model at 3‐Year Follow‐Up

“…15 It is well known that structures, material characteristics, and degradation processes of lactic acid-based polymers are contingent on a number of conditional factors, 16,17 of which the presence of a small proportion of D-lactyl units, the lower crystallinity, and the use of zinc lactate instead of stannous octoate as initiator of polymerization are likely responsible for the observed difference in dismantling rate and resorption time relative to comparative devices. 18 On an angiographic level, ART-BRS exhibited augmented lumen gain when compared with the Abbott BVS: late lumen loss for ART-BRS at 12, 18, and 24 months was À0.22, À0.24, and À0.15 mm, whereas for BVS it was 0.29, 0.02, and À0.03 mm, respectively. 7 Recent meta-analysis showed an increased risk of scaffold thrombosis for Absorb BVS at 1-year follow-up, 5 and this increase in stent thrombosis is also observed late at 3 years with 6 in 329 patients (2%) having very late scaffold thrombosis.…”

“…However, long-term performance remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ART-BRS compared to a bare metal stent (BMS) in a healthy porcine coronary model for up to 3 years.Methods and Results--Eighty-two ART-BRS and 66 BMS were implanted in 64 Yucatan swine, and animals were euthanatized at intervals of 1, 3,6,9,12,18, 24, and 36 months to determine the vascular response using quantitative coronary angiography, optical coherence tomography, light and scanning electron microscopy, and molecular weight analysis. Lumen enlargement was observed in ART-BRS as early as 3 months, which progressively increased up to 18 months, whereas BMS showed no significant difference over time.…”