Citation: Lorenzo Azzalini, Philippe L. L’Allier, Jean-François Tanguay. Bioresorbable Scaffolds: The Revolution in Coronary Stenting?[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2016, 3(1): 126-146. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2016.1.126
[1] | Nitin Chandra Mohan, Thomas W. Johnson . Role of intracoronary imaging in severely calcific disease. AIMS Medical Science, 2024, 11(4): 388-402. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2024027 |
[2] | Marco Ferrone, Anna Franzone, Bruno Trimarco, Giovanni Esposito, Plinio Cirillo . Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Patient with Acute Thrombosis of Saphenous Vein Graft and Patent Native Coronary Artery: Which is the Vessel to Approach?. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(4): 310-315. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.4.310 |
[3] | Ilana S. Golub, Angela Misic, Lucia P. Schroeder, Jairo Aldana-Bitar, Srikanth Krishnan, Sina Kianoush, Travis Benzing, Keishi Ichikawa, Matthew J. Budoff . Calcific coronary lesions: management, challenges, and a comprehensive review. AIMS Medical Science, 2024, 11(3): 292-317. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2024021 |
[4] | Bharat Khialani, Sara Malakouti, Sandeep Basavarajah, Leontin Lazar, Sylwia Iwanczyk, Bernardo Cortese . How to identify and prepare calcified lesions safely and effectively. AIMS Medical Science, 2025, 12(2): 171-192. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2025011 |
[5] | Bernardo Cortese, Davide Piraino, Eluisa La Franca, Dario Buccheri, Pedro Silva Orrego, Giuseppe Andolina, Romano Seregni . Coronary Stent Thrombosis in 2015: A Comprehensive and Uptodated Review. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(3): 131-149. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.3.131 |
[6] | Sophia Khattak, Farhan Shahid, Sohail Q. Khan . Challenges and risks associated with coronary calcified lesions in cardiovascular interventions: What makes calcified lesions more challenging and dangerous?. AIMS Medical Science, 2025, 12(1): 69-89. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2025006 |
[7] | Margarida Pujol-López, Luis Ortega-Paz, Manel Garabito, Salvatore Brugaletta, Manel Sabaté, Ana Paula Dantas . miRNA Update: A Review Focus on Clinical Implications of miRNA in Vascular Remodeling. AIMS Medical Science, 2017, 4(1): 99-112. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2017.1.99 |
[8] | Valeria Paradies, Filippo Masi, Francesco Bartolomucci, Alfredo Marchese, Armando Liso, Fabrizio Resta, Stefano Favale, Martino Pepe . No Reflow-phenomenon: from Current State of the Art to Future Perspectives. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(4): 374-395. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.4.374 |
[9] | Todd T. Nowlen, Luis F. Goncalves, Susan S. Park, Arash A. Sabati . Adolescent Kawasaki Disease patient with coronary calcifications, severe 4-vessel stenosis, and a normal stress MRI. AIMS Medical Science, 2025, 12(1): 28-37. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2025003 |
[10] | Giulia Alagna, Alessia Cascone, Antonino Micari, Giancarlo Trimarchi, Francesca Campanella, Giovanni Taverna, Saro Pistorio, Giuseppe Andò . Type and duration of antithrombotic therapy after treatment of severely calcified lesions. AIMS Medical Science, 2025, 12(1): 38-62. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2025004 |
In September 1977, Andreas Grüntzig, an ambitious young cardiologist from Zurich, performed the first coronary angioplasty on a severe stenosis of the left anterior descending artery in a conscious patient. The underlying concept was that the dilatation of the coronary stenosis using an inflatable balloon would allow redistribution of the atheroma (like “crushed snow”), and hence decrease in the degree of stenosis. The procedure was a complete success, and the patient—now asymptomatic—was soon discharged [1].
However, this technique was plagued by several problems, including the non-negligible risk of acute vessel closure (4-8%, due to occlusive dissection, and often requiring coronary artery bypass surgery, (CABG) [1,2] and high incidence of restenosis on mid-to-long term (≈30-60%, due to elastic recoil and constrictive remodeling) [3,4,5]. These mechanical problems required a mechanical solution. In the late 1980’s, different groups in both the U.S. and Europe independently developed metal “sleeves” that could be crimped onto balloon catheters, carried across the lesion and delivered by means of balloon expansion, in order to support vessel wall and prevent the collapse of the artery. These “stents”—such as the Gianturco-Roubin [6] and the Palmaz-Schatz [7] devices—represented an elegant solution to both vessel dissection and, to some extent, restenosis. However, these novel devices introduced new problems and complications, such as embolization from the balloon catheter and subacute stent thrombosis (ST) [8,9]. Technical improvements in the stents [10,11,12], the implantation technique (high-pressure post-dilatation) and adjuvant medical therapy (aspirin and ticlopidine) [13] allowed improved outcomes. However, with the widespread adoption of coronary stenting, including challenging clinical settings, the rates of subacute ST (1%) and restenosis (16-44%) were still a concern [14,15].
Since the development of the platform of these “bare-metal” stents (BMS) was approaching technical limits, the answer to these problems would come from a pharmacological approach, in the form of a surface coating and a drug delivery system. In particular, the addition of an antiproliferative compound, which would be released over the course of several months, would minimize the exuberant smooth muscle tissue growth within the stent. Indeed, the first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES)—sirolimus-eluting Cordis CypherTM and paclitaxel-eluting Boston Scientific TaxusTM—showed very low rates of restenosis (≈10%). These promising results led to a widespread adoption of DES and an increase in clinical indications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The introduction of the novel drug-eluting concept uncovered a new type of complication: late and very late ST. In fact, the uncontrolled antiproliferative effect of first-generation DES was associated with delayed endothelialization and persistent inflammation, which in turn triggered ST at medium-to-long-term follow-up. All-comer registries showed a steady incidence of ST of 0.5% per year, which reached 3% at 4 years [16,17]. Improvements in drug choice, release and concentration, as well as in the polymer delivering the drug and in strut thickness, led to a marked mitigation of this complication, with reassuring ST rates of 1% at 3 years [15]. Additionally, these second-generation DES (e.g., Abbott Vascular Xience VTM and Boston Scientific Promus ElementTM) were also associated with even lower rates of restenosis (4% at 2 years) [18].
Despite these improved results, the concept of metallic stenting has several intrinsic drawbacks. Firstly, with the widespread increase in the volume of PCIs, together with the increasing life expectancy of the population, we have been witnessing an increase in the complexity of clinical scenarios where coronary stenting is now required. For example, it is not uncommon to encounter patients with a restenosed metallic stent, which had been in turn implanted to treat a first episode of restenosis. In this setting, the addition of a third layer of metallic stent does not look appealing. Secondly, extensive stenting of distal vessels precludes further treatment with CABG (grafts cannot be anastomosed on metal-laden arteries). Thirdly, vasomotion tests have showed abnormal vasoconstriction in response to acetylcholine and exercise distally to the deployed metallic stent, suggesting that endothelium structure and function is abnormal following stent implantation [19,20]. Fourthly, metallic stenting of bifurcations has been associated with permanent jailing of side branches ostium. Finally, late lumen loss (LLL) and delayed endothelialization/persistent inflammation can still be improved beyond the limits reached with second-generation DES, thus reducing even further the risk of restenosis and ST [21].
The answer to all these limitations could be represented by temporary scaffolding of the diseased coronary segment by means of so-called “bioresorbable scaffolds” (BRS). Specifically, BRS could provide the advantages of metallic stents (i.e., plaque modification and stabilization, sealing of dissection, etc.) for several months, thus promoting vessel healing; when this is achieved, they would start the reabsorption process, leaving no trace of their previous presence behind (therefore avoiding the aforementioned long-term shortcomings of metallic stents). For these reasons, BRS have been considered the fourth revolution in the history of interventional cardiology [21,22]. Table 1 compares balloon angioplasty, BMS, DES and BRS.
POBA | BMS | DES | BRS | |
Acute occlusion | – | + | + | + |
Acute recoil | – | + | + | + |
Acute thrombosis | – | – | – | – |
Sub-acute thrombosis | +/–? | – | – | – |
Late/very late thrombosis | + | – | – | +/–? |
Neointimal hyperplasia | – | – | + | + |
Constrictive remodeling | – | + | + | + |
Expansive remodeling | + | – | – | + |
Restoration of vasomotion | + | – | – | + |
Late luminal enlargement | + | – | – | + |
Reproduced with permission from [27].
The idea of developing a bioresorbable scaffold was conceived ≈25 years ago. The first efforts were devoted to identify and develop non-metallic compounds (e.g., polyester or other polymers) to build stents which would exhibit less inflammatory and prothrombotic behavior than conventional stainless steel stents [23]. These experiments showed promising results in a swine model: the extent of neointimal proliferation was similar to that observed after placement of metal stents, despite the presence of a more pronounced inflammatory reaction [23]. Subsequently, several biodegradable polymers—mounted on conventional metallic stents—were tested by Dutch and American researchers, in order to assess their biocompatibility in porcine coronary arteries. Unfortunately, all resulted in marked inflammation, leading to neointimal hyperplasia and/or thrombus formation [24]. Additional experiences demonstrated that a metallic stent coated with high-molecular weight poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) was well tolerated in a porcine coronary injury model, exhibiting little inflammation, and also showed interesting properties as effective means of providing sustained, site-specific drug delivery [25]. Furthermore, Japanese researchers showed that a fully bioabsorbable PLLA scaffold eluting a tyrosine kinase inhibitor was able to efficiently suppress neointima hyperplasia induced by balloon injury in a swine model [26]. The first device that was tested in humans was the Igaki-Tamai (Kyoto Medical), a fully bioresorbable scaffold made of poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) without any drug coating. It required a 30-second inflation with a balloon filled with contrast heated at 70-80ºC to be implanted [27]. The first-in-man trial (n = 15) was published in 2000, and showed no stent thrombosis or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days, and one case of target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 6 months [28]. Notwithstanding these promising results, this device did not become popular due to concerns about use of the heated contrast in coronary arteries. Despite these fast-paced advances during the 1990’s, the development of what will be later known as BRS stagnated for a large part of the following decade, due to a combination of inability to manufacture an ideal polymer that could limit inflammation and restenosis, and because of the growing interest in metallic DES [21].
Current, mature BRS technology relies on a bioresorbable polymer or metal (the “scaffold”) that elutes an antiproliferative drug similar to metallic DES (most often, everolimus or sirolimus), although some devices lack any drug coating. Table 2 and Figure 1 show current BRS for which clinical data are available.
Scaffold (manufacturer) | Strut material | Coating material | Eluted drug | Strut thickness (μm) | Crossing profile (mm) | Radio-opacity | Radial support | Reabsorption (months) | Current status |
Metallic | |||||||||
AMS-1 (Biotronik) | Mg alloy | None | None | 165 | 1.2 | None | Weeks | < 4 | Discontinued |
DREAMS-1 (Biotronik) | Mg allow with some rare metals | PLGA | Paclitaxel | 125 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3-6 months | 9 | Discontinued |
DREAMS-2 (Biotronilk) | Mg allow with some rare metals | PLLA | Sirolimus | 150 | N/A—6F compatible | Metallic markers | 3-6 months | 9 | Clinical trial |
Polymeric | |||||||||
Igaki-Tamai (Kyoto Medical) | PLLA | None | None | 170 | N/A | Gold markers | 6 months | 24–36 | CE mark for peripheral use |
Absorb 1.0 (Abbott Vascular) | PLLA | PDLLA | Everolimus | 156 | 1.4 | Platinum markers | Weeks | 18–24 | Discontinued |
Absorb 1.1 (Abbott Vascular) | PLLA | PDLLA | Everolimus | 156 | 1.4 | Platinum markers | 6 months | 24–48 | CE mark |
DESolve (Elixir Medical) | PLLA | None | Novolimus | 150 | 1.5 | Metallic markers | N/A | 12–24 | CE mark |
ReZolve (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | 115–230 | 1.8 | Radiopaque scaffold | 4–6 months | 4–6 | Discontinued |
ReZolve2 (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | N/A | N/A | Radiopaque scaffold | N/A | N/A | Clinical trial |
Fantom (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | ~120 | 1.27 | Radiopaque scaffold | N/A | N/A | Clinical trial |
ART 18AZ (ART) | PDLLA | None | None | 170 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3–6 months | 3–6 | Clinical trial |
Fortitude (Amaranth) | PLLA | None | None | 150–200 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3–6 months | 3–6 | Clinical trial |
IDEAL BT1 (Xenogenics) | Polylactide and salicylates | SA/AA | Sirolimus | 200 | 1.5–1.7 | None | 3 months | 6–9 | Clinical trial |
MeRes100 (Meril Life Sciences) | PLLA | PDLLA | Sirolimus | 100 | N/A—6F compatible | Metallic markers | N/A | 24–36 | Clinical trial |
Abbreviations: CE, Conformitée Européenne; PDLLA, poly-DL-lactic acid; PLGA, poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid; PLLA, poly-L-lactic acid; PTD-PC, poly-tyrosine-derived polycarbonate; SA/AA, salicylic acid/adipic acid. Reproduced with permission from [27]. |
The device with more abundant and solid clinical data available is by far AbsorbTM by Abbott Vascular. The current version is made of a PLLA platform, with 156-µm struts, coated with poly-DL-lactic acid (PDLLA) and eluting everolimus. Platinum markers facilitate scaffold identification once implanted. Radial support is provided for the first 6 months, and reabsorption is completed between 24 and 48 months (Figure 2 and 3), although the now discontinued first version of the device (used in the ABSORB A trial [29]) featured a faster reabsorption kinetics (18-24 months). It is available in 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 mm diameters, and in 8, 12, 18, 23 and 28 mm lengths. AbsorbTM has obtained CE mark. Clinical data on AbsorbTM will be reviewed in the next section.
This device is made of an uncoated PLLA platform and elutes novolimus. Strut thickness is 150 µm. Metallic markers facilitate scaffold identification. It undergoes a faster degradation process than Absorb, since reabsorption is completed between 12 and 24 months. It is available in 2.5, 3.0, 3.25 and 3.5 mm diameters, and in 14, 18 and 28 mm lengths. Both the first-in-man experience (n = 16) and the larger DESolve NX trial (n = 126) showed effective suppression of neointimal hyperplasia at 6 months, no significant change in vessel volume and a LLL of 0.20 ± 0.32 mm at 6 months. Intravascular ultrasound data at 6 months demonstrated a significant (p < 0.001) increase in vessel area (17%), mean scaffold area (16%), and mean lumen area (9%). Moreover, only 1.2% of struts were left uncovered at 6 months (as opposed to 3.2% for AbsorbTM). Clinical outcomes were also promising, with an incidence of MACE of 3.3% at 6 months and 7.4% at 24 months, including a TLR rate of 1.6% and 4.1%, respectively, with no cases of definite ST [30,31]. DESolveTM has obtained CE mark.
After the promising preliminary experience with ReZolveTM in the RESTORE trial [32], REVA introduced a new iteration of its BRS, the ReZolve2TM, which features an improved delivery system and crossing profile. It is an uncoated sirolimus-eluting BRS based on REVA’s proprietary desaminotyrosine-derived polycarbonate platform. This interesting polymer is radiopaque, and thus enables complete visualization of the BRS, helping the operator minimizing geographic miss at implantation. It allows traditional one-step implantation (as opposed with AbsorbTM stepped inflation, meant to avoid disrupting the delicate PLLA architecture). It features an 85% degradation by 12 months and thick struts (≈200 µm) that confer high radial force. The ReZolve2 clinical program tested this scaffold in n = 112 patients with low-to-intermediate complexity lesions. Preliminary data reported a 4.5% MACE rate at 6 months (3.0% TLR) [33]. However, issues linked to the “slide and lock” delivery mechanism (which allowed the operator to ratchet open the device to a desired diameter during implantation) hampered the deliverability of this BRS, so that the new iteration of this scaffold will feature a conventional balloon expandable system. The ReZolve2 experience has contributed building data and knowledge for the development of the next generation device (Phantom), which is currently being tested in humans. Of note, to date no article publication on any of these BRS iterations has been released.
Biotronik adopted a radically different approach for the development of it BRS platform. Instead of a polymer, the company chose to use a bioabsorbable magnesium alloy. The first iteration of the device (AMS-1) was uncoated and did not elute any antiproliferative drug. Strut thickness was 165 µm. The radial support was lost within a few weeks after implantation (reabsorption was complete in < 4 months), resulting in a high rate of recoil and constrictive remodeling [27]. AMS-1 was tested in the PROGRESS-AMS trial (n = 63), which showed marked LLL (1.08 ± 0.49 mm at 4 months), which determined a 24% TLR rate at 4 months. There were no cases of death, myocardial infarction or ST [34]. The second iteration of this scaffold (DREAMS-1TM) featured thinner struts (125 µm), coating (poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid, PLGA) and drug elution (paclitaxel). The degradation process was longer (reabsorption was completed in 9 months). DREAMS-1TM was tested in the BIOSOLVE-I trial (n = 46), which showed a LLL of 0.65 ± 0.50 mm at 6 months and 0.52 ± 0.39 mm at 12 months. TLR rate was 4% at 6 months and 7% at 12 months. No deaths or ST were observed [35]. At 3-year follow-up, TLR rate was 4.5% and 2.3% of patients suffered a myocardial infarction. Again, no cases of death or ST were observed [36]. Further refinement to the device has been performed: DREAMS-2TM is a sirolimus-eluting scaffold that features PLLA coating. Strut thickness is 150 µm. Improved radiopacity is provided by metallic markers. Reabsorption is completed by 9 months. DREAMS-2TM is being tested in the ongoing BIOSOLVE-II trial.
As mentioned, the vast majority of clinical data available on BRS concerns Abbott Vascular AbsorbTM (Table 3).
Study | Design | Sample size (n) | Primary endpoint | Main findings | Available follow-up | Comments |
ABSORB A [37] | Single arm trial | 30 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia-driven TLR | 3.4% | 5 years | Simple lesions and clinical scenarios, first iteration of the device |
ABSORB B [38] | Single arm trial | 101 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia driven-TLR | 10% | 3 years | Simple lesions and clinical scenarios, first iteration of the device |
ABSORB II [39] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 501 | Vasomotion and difference in MLD between implantation and 3 years | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, TVR 5% vs. 3% (p = 0.35) at 1 year | 1 year | Less self-reported angina with AbsorbTM, but similar exercise performance |
ABSORB III [40] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 2008 | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven TLR | 7.8% vs. 6.1% (p = 0.007 for non-inferiority) | 1 year | AbsorbTM clinically non-inferior to XienceTM |
ABSORB STEMI TROFI II [41] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 191 | Healing score (OCT) | 1.74 ± 2.39 vs. 2.80 ± 4.44 (p < 0.001) | 6 months | Better healing (strut apposition and coverage) with AbsorbTM |
ABSORB China [42] | Randomized controlled trial (Absorb vs. Xience) | 480 | In-segment late loss | 0.19 ± 0.38 mm vs. 0.13 ± 0.37 mm (p = 0.01 for non-inferiority) | 1 year | AbsorbTM angiographically non-inferior to XienceTM |
GHOST-EU [43] | Registry | 1189 | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven TLR | 4.4% | 6 months | 2.1% of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis |
ABSORB EXTEND [45] | Registry | 512 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia driven-TLR | 4.3% | 1 year | 0.8% of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis |
Abbreviations: MI, myocardial infarction; MLD, minimal luminal diameter; OCT, optical coherence tomography; TLR, target lesion revascularization. TVR, target vessel revascularization. |
The seminal ABSORB A trial (n = 30) tested the first version of the scaffold in a cohort of lesions of intermediate complexity. Two-year follow-up showed no cases of death or TLR, and a 3.6% of myocardial infarctions. No cases of ST were observed. LLL was 0.48 ± 0.28 mm at 2 years. At 2 years, 34.5% of strut locations presented no discernible features by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Additionally, vasomotion occurred at the stented site and adjacent coronary artery in response to vasoactive agents [29]. At five-year, MACE rate remained unchanged (3.4%), and again no cases of ST [37]. The second-generation device was tested in the ABSORB B trial (n = 101), showing a three-year MACE rate of 10.0% (3% of non-Q-wave MI, 7% of TLR, and no cardiac deaths), without any case of ST. LLL was 0.29 mm at 3 years [38].
ABSORB II was the first trial comparing a BRS with a DES [39]. It randomized, in a 2:1 fashion, AbsorbTM and XienceTM n = 501 patients with evidence of myocardial ischemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. Patient population was somehow less selected than in previous trials (24% diabetes, 14% moderately or severely calcified lesions, 9% two or more lesions treated), even though type-C lesions were observed in only 1.5% of cases, bifurcations and acute coronary syndrome patients were excluded, lesions were on average quite short (13.8 ± 6.5 mm) and very few (15%) overlapping scaffolds were implanted. At 1 year, rates of first new or worsening angina were lower in the BRS group (22% vs. 30%, p = 0.04)—a finding that is believed to be due to the restored vasomotion—whereas performance during maximum exercise and angina status by a standardized questionnaire were similar. At one-year follow-up, MACE rate was 5% in the BRS group and 3% in the DES group (p = 0.35), with the most common adverse events being non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%, p = 0.16) and clinically-indicated TLR (1% vs 2%, p = 0.69). Three patients (0.9%) in the BRS group had definite or probable ST (two definite early and one probable late), compared with no patients in the DES group (p = 0.55).
The recently published ABSORB III [40] is to date the largest trial comparing a BRS to a metallic DES. It randomized n = 2008 patients to AbsorbTM (n = 1322) or to XienceTM (n = 686) with stable or unstable angina. Patient population risk profile was intermediate: 32% diabetes, 70% type B2 or C lesions, but ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI were exclusion criteria, so that only stable and unstable angina patients with one or two lesions were included. Device success was 94% for AbsorbTM and 99% for XienceTM. At 1 year, Absorb was non-inferior to XienceTM in terms of MACE (7.8% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.007 for non-inferiority). Notably, there were no differences in stent thrombosis as well (1.5% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.13).
Additional randomized evidence on the safety and efficacy of AbsorbTM comes from the STEMI-TROFI II trial [41], which randomized n = 191 STEMI patients to either AbsorbTM or XienceTM. The primary endpoint was the 6-month OCT “healing score”. Healing was significantly improved in Absorb-treated patients, as compared with subjects randomized to XienceTM, thanks to better strut coverage and apposition. There were no differences in clinical endpoints.
Finally, ABSORB China, which again randomized n = 480 patients with stable coronary artery disease to either AbsorbTM or XienceTM, showed comparable outcomes in terms of angiographic in-segment late loss at one year [42].
Beside randomized data, a large body of evidence on BRS comes from observational registries. The largest of those is the GHOST-EU registry (n = 1189), which summarizes the European experience with BRS. Currently, 6-month follow-up is available [43]. A total of 1731 AbsorbTM scaffolds were implanted, with a technical success rate of 99.7%, despite a large proportion of type-C lesions (28%). Clinical scenarios included: bifurcations (27%), STEMI (16%), in-stent restenosis (3%), ostial lesions (6%) and chronic total occlusions (CTO) (8%). Target lesion failure was 2.2% at 30 days and 4.4% at 6 months. At 6 months, the rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and TLR were 1.0%, 2.0% and 2.5%, respectively. Diabetes mellitus was found to be the only independent predictor of target lesion failure. Alarmingly (but not surprisingly, given the broad spectrum of indications of BRS in this study), the cumulative incidence of definite/probable ST was 1.5% at 30 days and 2.1% at 6 months, with 70% of cases occurring within the first month (at a median of 5 days). Based on these data, the rates of ST with AbsorbTM resemble those of first-generation DES and do not compare favorably with the very low rates seen with second-generation DES [44].
Similar data comes from the ABSORB-EXTEND study, a registry that plans to enroll n = 800 patients from 100 sites worldwide. One of the strengths of this study is that an independent clinical events committee adjudicates all endpoint-related events. The one-year outcomes of n = 512 have recently been published [45]. Patient population was of intermediate complexity (26% of patients had diabetes, 41% had type B2/C lesions). Clinical device success was 98.5%. At one year, the composite endpoints of ischemia-driven MACE and ischemia-driven target vessel failure were 4.3% and 4.9%, respectively. The rate of definite and probable ST was 0.8%.
Finally, as the experience with the device builds up, several operators have become more comfortable to use it also in challenging clinical scenarios, including bifurcations [46,47,48,49], left main [50], calcified lesions [51], CTO [52], STEMI [53,54,55,56], saphenous vein grafts [57], mammary arteries [58], and in-stent restenosis [59]. In order to systematize the implantation technique and minimize the risk of adverse events both peri-procedurally and at follow-up, a group of European AbsorbTM experienced users redacted consensus criteria for patient and lesion selection, BRS implantation and optimization, as well as the role of intravascular imaging guidance, approach to multiple patient and lesion scenarios, and management of complications [60].
One of the Achilles’ heels of BRS appears to be its thrombogenicity, which likely results from rheological disturbances (abnormally low shear stress) observed in the vicinity of its thick struts [61]. As previously mentioned, the rate of ST in early large real-world registries is high (2.1% at 6 months in the GHOST-EU registry [43]). Additionally, the recent report of cases of very late BRS thrombosis [62,63] contributes debulking the belief that BRS were immune from this clinical entity, given the fact that reabsorption is at an advanced stage after one year since implantation, and is completed in most patients by 24 months. Suboptimal implantation (incomplete lesion coverage, underexpansion and malapposition) represents the main mechanism for both early and late BRS thrombosis, similar to metallic ST. Dual antiplatelet therapy discontinuation might also be a secondary contributor in several late events [64].
Similarly, BRS are also vulnerable to develop in-scaffold restenosis, as it has been highlighted by recent reports from the ABSORB B trial and the GHOST-EU registry [65,66]. In the ABSORB B trial, the incidence of BRS restenosis was 6% (n = 6) at a median time-to-restenosis of 399 ± 248 days. For half of these cases the main mechanism of restenosis was shown to be significant intra-scaffold tissue growth, whereas in the other half it was due to anatomical or procedural factors [65]. Similarly, in one of the centers participating in the GHOST-EU registry, the incidence of BRS restenosis was 3.6% (n = 12) at a median time-to-restenosis of 291± 101 days. In this case series, the most frequent mechanisms of restenosis were focal restenosis at the scaffold edge and underexpansion in BRS implanted in type-C lesions [66]. Of note, unlike for metallic stent restenosis, there is very little information on how to deal with BRS restenosis. Since at the time of presentation (> 9-12 months) the scaffold has generally lost most of its mechanical properties, balloon angioplasty may disrupt the struts leading to adverse outcomes [66], so that additional stent/scaffold implantation may be unavoidable. A detailed dissertation on the risk factors and mechanisms of BRS failure, as well as possible strategies to deal with it, might be found elsewhere [67].
Another limitation of currently available BRS is their trackability and deliverability. To provide sufficient radial strength to oppose negative remodeling and minimize acute recoil, polymeric scaffolds have thicker struts (150-200 µm) than metallic stents (≈80 µm). This, together with challenges in the crimping process, results in worse crossing profile of BRS, which ranges between 1.4 mm (AbsorbTM) and 1.8 mm (first-generation ReZolveTM), which is markedly worse than current DES (1.0 mm) [27]. These technical limitations hamper the advancement of the BRS across tortuous segments of the coronary arteries and in calcified lesions, for example. Indeed, improvement in BRS crossing profile is one of the main goal of further upcoming iterations of these devices.
BRS have been hailed as the fourth revolution in the history of interventional cardiology [21,22], since they provide temporary scaffolding that helps stabilizing the plaque and promotes healing, and then disappear, leaving no trace behind. This has several advantages, as compared with metallic stents: e.g., the restoration of a functional endothelium and thus vasomotion, the ability to treat in-stent restenosis without delivering an additional layer of metal, the possibility of eventually performing a CABG anastomosis on the site of prior BRS implantation.
Even if several iterations of certain devices have been successfully developed and used in clinical practice, we are currently witnessing the introduction of the first-generation of BRS. As it had been for BMS first and DES later, this novel device is still immature to some extent, and further refinements should be performed before BRS can truly become a game-changer in the everyday practice in the cath lab. In particular, smaller strut thickness will improve BRS crossing profile and rheological properties (thus decreasing the risk of ST). Another limitation is the relatively weak radial strength than most current generation BRS exhibit, in comparison with metallic stents: this influences both lesion preparation and post-dilatation capabilities of these devices [22]. Indeed, aggressive lesion preparation has been advocated when BRS are to be implanted, and—although post-dilatation is recommended—over-dilatation has to be avoided, in order not to weaken BRS architecture, which might lead to strut fracture [60]. Finally, despite the first encouraging results on the performance of BRS in registries and small trials, convincing data on the superiority—and possibly also on the non-inferiority—of these devices, as compared with metallic DES, are still awaited. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis of randomized trials showed that AbsorbTM exhibits worse angiographic outcomes and a higher risk of ST, as compared with Xience, with comparable rates of MACE [68].
The authors report no financial relationships or conflicts of interest regarding the content herein.
Dr. L-L’Allier is supported by La Fondation de l’Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal and holds the Desgroseillers-Bérard Chair in Interventional Cardiology.
[1] |
Grüntzig AR, Senning A, Siegenthaler WE (1979) Nonoperative dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis— percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. New Engl J Med 301:61–68. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197907123010201
![]() |
[2] |
De Feyter PJ, de Jaegere PP, Serruys PW (1994) Incidence, predictors, and management of acute coronary occlusion after coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J 127: 643–651. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(94)90675-0
![]() |
[3] | Serruys PW, Luijten HE, Beatt KJ, et al. (1988) Incidence of restenosis after successful coronary angioplasty: a time-related phenomenon. A quantitative angiographic study in 342 consecutive patients at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months. Circulation 77: 361–371. |
[4] |
Gruentzig AR, King SB 3rd, Schlumpf M, et al. (1987) Long-term follow-up after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. The early Zurich experience. New Engl J Med 316: 1127–1132. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198704303161805
![]() |
[5] |
Farooq V, Gogas BD, Serruys PW (2001) Restenosis: delineating the numerous causes of drug-eluting stent restenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 4: 195–205. doi: 10.1080/14628840127766 ![]() |
[6] | Macander PJ, Agrawal SK, Roubin GS (1991) The Gianturco-Roubin balloon-expandable intracoronary flexible coil stent. J Invasive Cardiol 3: 85–94. |
[7] |
Schatz RA, Palmaz JC, Tio FO, et al. (1987) Balloon-expandable intracoronary stents in the adult dog. Circulation 76: 450–457. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.76.2.450
![]() |
[8] |
Sigwart U, Gold S, Kaufman U, et al. (1988) Analysis of complications associated with coronary stenting (abstract). J Am Coll Cardiol 11: 66A. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(88)90168-4
![]() |
[9] |
Sigwart U, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, et al. (1987) Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis after transluminal angioplasty. New Engl J Med 316: 701–706. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198703193161201
![]() |
[10] |
Lansky AJ, Roubin GS, O’Shaughnessy CD, et al. (2000) Randomized comparison of GR-II stent and Palmaz-Schatz stent for elective treatment of coronary stenoses. Circulation 102: 1364–1368. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.102.12.1364
![]() |
[11] |
Baim DS, Cutlip DE, Midei M, et al. (2001) Final results of a randomized trial comparing the MULTI-LINK stent with the Palmaz-Schatz stent for narrowings in native coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol 87: 157–162. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9149(00)01308-4
![]() |
[12] | Baim DS, Cutlip DE, O’Shaughnessy CD, et al. (2001) Final results of a randomized trial comparing the NIR stent to the Palmaz-Schatz stent for narrowings in native coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol 87: 152–156. |
[13] |
Colombo A, Hall P, Nakamura S, et al. (1995) Intracoronary stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular ultrasound guidance. Circulation 91: 1676–1688. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.91.6.1676
![]() |
[14] | Duckers HJ, Nabel EG, Serruys PW, editors. (2007) Essentials of restenosis: for the interventional cardiologist. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. |
[15] |
Tada T, Byrne RA, Simunovic I, et al. (2013) Risk of stent thrombosis among bare-metal stents, first-generation drug-eluting stents, and second-generation drug-eluting stents: results from a registry of 18,334 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6: 1267–1274. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.06.015
![]() |
[16] |
Daemen J, Wenaweser P, Tsuchida K, et al. (2007) Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study. Lancet 369: 667–678. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60314-6 ![]() |
[17] | Wenaweser P, Daemen J, Zwahlen M, et al. (2008) Incidence and correlates of drug-eluting stent thrombosis in routine clinical practice. 4-year results from a large 2-institutional cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol 52: 1134–1140. |
[18] | Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, et al. (2012) Lower risk of stent thrombosis and restenosis with unrestricted use of “new-generation” drug-eluting stents: A report from the nationwide Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). Eur Heart J 33: 606–613. |
[19] |
Togni M, Windecker S, Cocchia R, et al. (2005) Sirolimus-eluting stents associated with paradoxic coronary vasoconstriction. J Am Coll Cardiol 46: 231–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.01.062
![]() |
[20] | Hofma SH, Van Der Giessen WJ, Van Dalen BM, et al. (2006) Indication of long-term endothelial dysfunction after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Eur Heart J 27: 166–170. |
[21] |
Onuma Y, Serruys PW (2011) Bioresorbable scaffold: the advent of a new era in percutaneous coronary and peripheral revascularization? Circulation 123: 779–797. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.971606
![]() |
[22] | Wayangankar SA, Ellis SG (2015) Bioresorbable stents: is this where we are headed? Prog Cardiovasc Dis 26. |
[23] | Van der Giessen WJ, Slager CJ, van Beusekom HM, et al. (1992) Development of a polymer endovascular prosthesis and its implantation in porcine arteries. J Invasive Cardiol 5: 175–185. |
[24] |
Van der Giessen WJ, Lincoff AM, Schwartz RS, et al. (1996) Marked inflammatory sequelae to implantation of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable polymers in porcine coronary arteries. Circulation 94: 1690–1697. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.94.7.1690
![]() |
[25] |
Lincoff AM, Furst JG, Ellis SG, et al. (1997) Sustained local delivery of dexamethasone by a novel intravascular eluting stent to prevent restenosis in the porcine coronary injury model. J Am Coll Cardiol 29: 808–816. doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(96)00584-0
![]() |
[26] | Yamawaki T, Shimokawa H, Kozai T, et al. (1998) Intramural delivery of a specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor with biodegradable stent suppresses the restenotic changes of the coronary artery in pigs in vivo. J Am Coll Cardiol 32: 780–786. |
[27] | Iqbal J, Onuma Y, Ormiston J, et al. (2013) Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur Heart J 35: 765–776. |
[28] |
Tamai H, Igaki K, Kyo E, et al. (2000) Initial and 6-month results of biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents in humans. Circulation 102: 399–404. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.102.4.399
![]() |
[29] | Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Onuma Y, et al. (2009) A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet 373: 897–910. |
[30] |
Verheye S, Ormiston JA, Stewart J, et al. (2014) A next-generation bioresorbable coronary scaffold system: from bench to first clinical evaluation: 6- and 12-month clinical and multimodality imaging results. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 7: 89–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.07.007
![]() |
[31] | Abizaid A (2014) DESolve NX Trial clinical and imaging results. Presented at: Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT). Washington, DC; September 13-17. |
[32] | Costa RA (2012) REVA ReZolve clinical program update. Presented at: Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT). Miami Beach, FL; October 22-28. |
[33] | Muller D (2014) ReZolve 2: Bioresorbable coronary scaffold clinical program update. Presented at: EuroPCR. Paris, France; May 20-23. |
[34] | Erbel R, Di Mario C, Bartunek J, et al. (2007) Temporary scaffolding of coronary arteries with bioabsorbable magnesium stents: a prospective, non-randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 369: 1869–1875. |
[35] | Haude M, Erbel R, Erne P, et al. (2013) Safety and performance of the drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold (DREAMS) in patients with de-novo coronary lesions: 12 month results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial. The Lancet 381: 836–844. |
[36] | Waksman R (2014) Long-term clinical data of the BIOSOLVE-I study with the paclitaxel-eluting absorbable magnesium scaffold (DREAMS 1st generation) and multi- modality imaging analysis. |
[37] |
Onuma Y, Dudek D, Thuesen L, et al. (2013) Five-year clinical and functional multislice computed tomography angiographic results after coronary implantation of the fully resorbable polymeric everolimus-eluting scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB cohort A trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6: 999–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.05.017
![]() |
[38] |
Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. (2014) Dynamics of vessel wall changes following the implantation of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a multi-imaging modality study at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. EuroIntervention 9: 1271–1284. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I11A217
![]() |
[39] | Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, et al. (2015) A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from. Lancet 385: 43–54. |
[40] |
Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. (2015) Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 373: 1905–1915. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509038
![]() |
[41] |
Sabaté M, Windecker S, Iñiguez A, et al. (2015) Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial. Eur Heart J 23. |
[42] | Gao R, Yang Y, Han Y, et al. (2015) Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB China trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 25. |
[43] |
Capodanno D, Gori T, Nef H, et al. (2015) Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry. EuroIntervention 10: 1144–1153. doi: 10.4244/EIJY14M07_11 ![]() |
[44] |
Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. (2012) Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. Lancet 379: 1393–1402. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60324-9
![]() |
[45] | Abizaid A, Costa JR, Bartorelli AL, et al. (2015) The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelve-month clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled. EuroIntervention 10: 1396–1401. |
[46] |
Džavík V, Colombo A (2014) The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold in coronary bifurcations: insights from bench testing. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 7: 81–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.07.013
![]() |
[47] | Rundeken MJ, Hassell MECJ, Kraak RP, et al. (2014) Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold in combination with the Tryton dedicated coronary bifurcation stent: evaluation using two- and three-dimensional optical coherence tomography. EuroIntervention 30. |
[48] | Capranzano P, Gargiulo G, Capodanno D, et al. (2014) Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. Minerva Cardioangiol 62: 229–234. |
[49] |
Kawamoto H, Latib A, Ruparelia N, et al. (2015) Clinical outcomes following bioresorbable scaffold implantation for bifurcation lesions: overall outcomes and comparison between provisional and planned double stenting strategy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 86: 644–652. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26045
![]() |
[50] | Cortese B, Silva Orrego P, Sebik R, et al. (2014) Biovascular scaffolding of distal left main trunk: experience and follow up from the multicenter prospective RAI registry (Registro Italiano Absorb). Int J Cardiol 177: 497–499. |
[51] | Panoulas VF, Miyazaki T, Sato K, et al. (2015) Procedural outcomes of patients with calcified lesions treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. EuroIntervention 30. |
[52] | Vaquerizo B, Barros A, Pujadas S, et al. (2014) Bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold for the treatment of chronic total occlusions: CTO-ABSORB pilot study. EuroIntervention 16. |
[53] |
Diletti R, Karanasos A, Muramatsu T, et al. (2014) Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for treatment of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: BVS STEMI first study. Eur Heart J 35: 777–786. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht546
![]() |
[54] | Kocka V, Maly M, Tousek P, et al. (2014) Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a prospective multicentre study “Prague 19.” Eur Heart J 35: 787–794. |
[55] |
Ielasi A, Cortese B, Varricchio A, et al. (2015) Immediate and midterm outcomes following primary PCI with bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction: insights from the multicentre “Registro ABSORB Italiano” (RAI registry). EuroIntervention 11: 157–162. doi: 10.4244/EIJY14M10_11
![]() |
[56] | Brugaletta S, Gori T, Low AF, et al. (2015) Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results of a propensity score matching comparison: the BVS-EXAMINATION Study (bioresorbable vascular scaffold-a clinical evaluation of everolimus eluting coronary stents in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8: 189–197. |
[57] | Ong PJ, Jafary FH, Ho HH (2013) “First-in-man” use of bioresorbable vascular scaffold in saphenous vein graft. EuroIntervention 9: 165. |
[58] | Deora S, Shah S, Patel T (2014) First-in-man implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffold in left internal mammary artery graft. J Invasive Cardiol 26: 92–93. |
[59] |
Moscarella E, Varricchio A, Stabile E, et al. (2015) Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: results from a multicenter Italian experience. Int J Cardiol 199: 366–372. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.07.002
![]() |
[60] |
Tamburino C, Latib A, van Geuns R-J, et al. (2015) Contemporary practice and technical aspects in coronary intervention with bioresorbable scaffolds: a European perspective. EuroIntervention 11: 45–52. doi: 10.4244/EIJY15M01_05
![]() |
[61] | Azzalini L, L’Allier PL (2015) Bioresorbable vascular scaffold thrombosis in an all-comer patient population: single center experience. J Invasive Cardiol 27: 85–92. |
[62] | Azzalini L, Al-Hawwas M, L’Allier PL (2015) Very late bioresorbable vascular scaffold thrombosis: a new clinical entity. Eurointervention 11: e1–2. |
[63] |
Karanasos A, van Geuns R-J, Zijlstra F, et al. (2014) Very late bioresorbable scaffold thrombosis after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy. Eur Heart J 35: 1781. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu031
![]() |
[64] |
Karanasos A, Van Mieghem N, van Ditzhuijzen N, et al. (2015) Angiographic and optical coherence tomography insights into bioresorbable scaffold thrombosis: single-center experience. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 8: e002369. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002369
![]() |
[65] |
Nakatani S, Onuma Y, Ishibashi Y, et al. (2015) Early (before 6 months), late (6-12 months) and very late (after 12 months) angiographic scaffold restenosis in the ABSORB Cohort B trial. EuroIntervention 10: 1288–1298. doi: 10.4244/EIJV10I11A218
![]() |
[66] |
Longo G, Granata F, Capodanno D, et al. (2015) Anatomical features and management of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds failure: A case series from the GHOST registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 85: 1150–1161. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25819
![]() |
[67] |
Felix C, Everaert B, Jepson N, et al. (2015) Treatment of bioresorbable scaffold failure. EuroIntervention 11: V175–180. doi: 10.4244/EIJV11SVA42
![]() |
[68] | Cassese S, Byrne RA, Ndrepepa G, et al. (2015) Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet 6736: 1–8. |
1. | Waled Hadasha, Deon Bezuidenhout, 2017, Chapter 27, 978-3-319-75458-1, 51, 10.1007/12_2017_27 | |
2. | Wenjiao Lin, Li Qin, Haiping Qi, Deyuan Zhang, Gui Zhang, Runlin Gao, Hong Qiu, Ying Xia, Ping Cao, Xiang Wang, Wei Zheng, Long-term in vivo corrosion behavior, biocompatibility and bioresorption mechanism of a bioresorbable nitrided iron scaffold, 2017, 54, 17427061, 454, 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.03.020 | |
3. | A.R. Abaei, Connor J. Shine, T.J. Vaughan, W. Ronan, An integrated mechanical degradation model to explore the mechanical response of a bioresorbable polymeric scaffold, 2024, 152, 17516161, 106419, 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106419 |
POBA | BMS | DES | BRS | |
Acute occlusion | – | + | + | + |
Acute recoil | – | + | + | + |
Acute thrombosis | – | – | – | – |
Sub-acute thrombosis | +/–? | – | – | – |
Late/very late thrombosis | + | – | – | +/–? |
Neointimal hyperplasia | – | – | + | + |
Constrictive remodeling | – | + | + | + |
Expansive remodeling | + | – | – | + |
Restoration of vasomotion | + | – | – | + |
Late luminal enlargement | + | – | – | + |
Scaffold (manufacturer) | Strut material | Coating material | Eluted drug | Strut thickness (μm) | Crossing profile (mm) | Radio-opacity | Radial support | Reabsorption (months) | Current status |
Metallic | |||||||||
AMS-1 (Biotronik) | Mg alloy | None | None | 165 | 1.2 | None | Weeks | < 4 | Discontinued |
DREAMS-1 (Biotronik) | Mg allow with some rare metals | PLGA | Paclitaxel | 125 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3-6 months | 9 | Discontinued |
DREAMS-2 (Biotronilk) | Mg allow with some rare metals | PLLA | Sirolimus | 150 | N/A—6F compatible | Metallic markers | 3-6 months | 9 | Clinical trial |
Polymeric | |||||||||
Igaki-Tamai (Kyoto Medical) | PLLA | None | None | 170 | N/A | Gold markers | 6 months | 24–36 | CE mark for peripheral use |
Absorb 1.0 (Abbott Vascular) | PLLA | PDLLA | Everolimus | 156 | 1.4 | Platinum markers | Weeks | 18–24 | Discontinued |
Absorb 1.1 (Abbott Vascular) | PLLA | PDLLA | Everolimus | 156 | 1.4 | Platinum markers | 6 months | 24–48 | CE mark |
DESolve (Elixir Medical) | PLLA | None | Novolimus | 150 | 1.5 | Metallic markers | N/A | 12–24 | CE mark |
ReZolve (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | 115–230 | 1.8 | Radiopaque scaffold | 4–6 months | 4–6 | Discontinued |
ReZolve2 (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | N/A | N/A | Radiopaque scaffold | N/A | N/A | Clinical trial |
Fantom (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | ~120 | 1.27 | Radiopaque scaffold | N/A | N/A | Clinical trial |
ART 18AZ (ART) | PDLLA | None | None | 170 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3–6 months | 3–6 | Clinical trial |
Fortitude (Amaranth) | PLLA | None | None | 150–200 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3–6 months | 3–6 | Clinical trial |
IDEAL BT1 (Xenogenics) | Polylactide and salicylates | SA/AA | Sirolimus | 200 | 1.5–1.7 | None | 3 months | 6–9 | Clinical trial |
MeRes100 (Meril Life Sciences) | PLLA | PDLLA | Sirolimus | 100 | N/A—6F compatible | Metallic markers | N/A | 24–36 | Clinical trial |
Abbreviations: CE, Conformitée Européenne; PDLLA, poly-DL-lactic acid; PLGA, poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid; PLLA, poly-L-lactic acid; PTD-PC, poly-tyrosine-derived polycarbonate; SA/AA, salicylic acid/adipic acid. Reproduced with permission from [27]. |
Study | Design | Sample size (n) | Primary endpoint | Main findings | Available follow-up | Comments |
ABSORB A [37] | Single arm trial | 30 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia-driven TLR | 3.4% | 5 years | Simple lesions and clinical scenarios, first iteration of the device |
ABSORB B [38] | Single arm trial | 101 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia driven-TLR | 10% | 3 years | Simple lesions and clinical scenarios, first iteration of the device |
ABSORB II [39] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 501 | Vasomotion and difference in MLD between implantation and 3 years | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, TVR 5% vs. 3% (p = 0.35) at 1 year | 1 year | Less self-reported angina with AbsorbTM, but similar exercise performance |
ABSORB III [40] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 2008 | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven TLR | 7.8% vs. 6.1% (p = 0.007 for non-inferiority) | 1 year | AbsorbTM clinically non-inferior to XienceTM |
ABSORB STEMI TROFI II [41] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 191 | Healing score (OCT) | 1.74 ± 2.39 vs. 2.80 ± 4.44 (p < 0.001) | 6 months | Better healing (strut apposition and coverage) with AbsorbTM |
ABSORB China [42] | Randomized controlled trial (Absorb vs. Xience) | 480 | In-segment late loss | 0.19 ± 0.38 mm vs. 0.13 ± 0.37 mm (p = 0.01 for non-inferiority) | 1 year | AbsorbTM angiographically non-inferior to XienceTM |
GHOST-EU [43] | Registry | 1189 | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven TLR | 4.4% | 6 months | 2.1% of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis |
ABSORB EXTEND [45] | Registry | 512 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia driven-TLR | 4.3% | 1 year | 0.8% of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis |
Abbreviations: MI, myocardial infarction; MLD, minimal luminal diameter; OCT, optical coherence tomography; TLR, target lesion revascularization. TVR, target vessel revascularization. |
POBA | BMS | DES | BRS | |
Acute occlusion | – | + | + | + |
Acute recoil | – | + | + | + |
Acute thrombosis | – | – | – | – |
Sub-acute thrombosis | +/–? | – | – | – |
Late/very late thrombosis | + | – | – | +/–? |
Neointimal hyperplasia | – | – | + | + |
Constrictive remodeling | – | + | + | + |
Expansive remodeling | + | – | – | + |
Restoration of vasomotion | + | – | – | + |
Late luminal enlargement | + | – | – | + |
Scaffold (manufacturer) | Strut material | Coating material | Eluted drug | Strut thickness (μm) | Crossing profile (mm) | Radio-opacity | Radial support | Reabsorption (months) | Current status |
Metallic | |||||||||
AMS-1 (Biotronik) | Mg alloy | None | None | 165 | 1.2 | None | Weeks | < 4 | Discontinued |
DREAMS-1 (Biotronik) | Mg allow with some rare metals | PLGA | Paclitaxel | 125 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3-6 months | 9 | Discontinued |
DREAMS-2 (Biotronilk) | Mg allow with some rare metals | PLLA | Sirolimus | 150 | N/A—6F compatible | Metallic markers | 3-6 months | 9 | Clinical trial |
Polymeric | |||||||||
Igaki-Tamai (Kyoto Medical) | PLLA | None | None | 170 | N/A | Gold markers | 6 months | 24–36 | CE mark for peripheral use |
Absorb 1.0 (Abbott Vascular) | PLLA | PDLLA | Everolimus | 156 | 1.4 | Platinum markers | Weeks | 18–24 | Discontinued |
Absorb 1.1 (Abbott Vascular) | PLLA | PDLLA | Everolimus | 156 | 1.4 | Platinum markers | 6 months | 24–48 | CE mark |
DESolve (Elixir Medical) | PLLA | None | Novolimus | 150 | 1.5 | Metallic markers | N/A | 12–24 | CE mark |
ReZolve (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | 115–230 | 1.8 | Radiopaque scaffold | 4–6 months | 4–6 | Discontinued |
ReZolve2 (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | N/A | N/A | Radiopaque scaffold | N/A | N/A | Clinical trial |
Fantom (REVA Medical) | PTD-PC | None | Sirolimus | ~120 | 1.27 | Radiopaque scaffold | N/A | N/A | Clinical trial |
ART 18AZ (ART) | PDLLA | None | None | 170 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3–6 months | 3–6 | Clinical trial |
Fortitude (Amaranth) | PLLA | None | None | 150–200 | N/A—6F compatible | None | 3–6 months | 3–6 | Clinical trial |
IDEAL BT1 (Xenogenics) | Polylactide and salicylates | SA/AA | Sirolimus | 200 | 1.5–1.7 | None | 3 months | 6–9 | Clinical trial |
MeRes100 (Meril Life Sciences) | PLLA | PDLLA | Sirolimus | 100 | N/A—6F compatible | Metallic markers | N/A | 24–36 | Clinical trial |
Abbreviations: CE, Conformitée Européenne; PDLLA, poly-DL-lactic acid; PLGA, poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid; PLLA, poly-L-lactic acid; PTD-PC, poly-tyrosine-derived polycarbonate; SA/AA, salicylic acid/adipic acid. Reproduced with permission from [27]. |
Study | Design | Sample size (n) | Primary endpoint | Main findings | Available follow-up | Comments |
ABSORB A [37] | Single arm trial | 30 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia-driven TLR | 3.4% | 5 years | Simple lesions and clinical scenarios, first iteration of the device |
ABSORB B [38] | Single arm trial | 101 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia driven-TLR | 10% | 3 years | Simple lesions and clinical scenarios, first iteration of the device |
ABSORB II [39] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 501 | Vasomotion and difference in MLD between implantation and 3 years | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, TVR 5% vs. 3% (p = 0.35) at 1 year | 1 year | Less self-reported angina with AbsorbTM, but similar exercise performance |
ABSORB III [40] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 2008 | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven TLR | 7.8% vs. 6.1% (p = 0.007 for non-inferiority) | 1 year | AbsorbTM clinically non-inferior to XienceTM |
ABSORB STEMI TROFI II [41] | Randomized controlled trial (AbsorbTM vs. XienceTM) | 191 | Healing score (OCT) | 1.74 ± 2.39 vs. 2.80 ± 4.44 (p < 0.001) | 6 months | Better healing (strut apposition and coverage) with AbsorbTM |
ABSORB China [42] | Randomized controlled trial (Absorb vs. Xience) | 480 | In-segment late loss | 0.19 ± 0.38 mm vs. 0.13 ± 0.37 mm (p = 0.01 for non-inferiority) | 1 year | AbsorbTM angiographically non-inferior to XienceTM |
GHOST-EU [43] | Registry | 1189 | Cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven TLR | 4.4% | 6 months | 2.1% of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis |
ABSORB EXTEND [45] | Registry | 512 | Cardiac death, MI, ischemia driven-TLR | 4.3% | 1 year | 0.8% of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis |
Abbreviations: MI, myocardial infarction; MLD, minimal luminal diameter; OCT, optical coherence tomography; TLR, target lesion revascularization. TVR, target vessel revascularization. |