Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffolds: Current State of Evidence

S. Goel, Shiv Raj, Abhishek Sharma, U. Gidwani, R. Frankel, J. Shani
{"title":"Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffolds: Current State of Evidence","authors":"S. Goel, Shiv Raj, Abhishek Sharma, U. Gidwani, R. Frankel, J. Shani","doi":"10.33590/emjcardiol/10311110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Second-generation drug-eluting stents are currently considered the standard of care in patients undergoing treatment for coronary artery disease with percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite significant improvements in stenting technology and stent material over the past three decades, the concern that a permanent metallic prosthesis within the coronary vasculature can serve as a trigger for stent-related adverse events, mainly stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis, still persists. In order to overcome the disadvantages of drug-eluting stents there has been a robust development in the field of bioresorbable coronary scaffolds (BRS). These devices aim to provide temporary scaffolding to restore vessel patency and, after serving its purpose, fully degrade and thus allow restoration of vasomotion along with luminal enlargement. The initial experience with bioresorbable scaffolds in low-risk patients presenting with simple lesions was satisfying and generated optimism among interventional cardiologists by promising better patient outcomes. However, the unrestricted use of these devices in patients presenting with a higher baseline risk and more complex lesions came at the cost of alarmingly high rates of adverse cardiac events, especially the late device thrombosis. Although its non-inferiority compared to metallic everolimus-eluting stents was formally met in the clinical trials, there was a clear trend towards an increased occurrence of myocardial infarction and device thrombosis during the first year after device implantation, which persisted even at long-term follow-up raising concern on the future of BRS. This review article discusses the development, design, clinical data, and future directions in the field of BRS.","PeriodicalId":284912,"journal":{"name":"EMJ Cardiology","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EMJ Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33590/emjcardiol/10311110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Second-generation drug-eluting stents are currently considered the standard of care in patients undergoing treatment for coronary artery disease with percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite significant improvements in stenting technology and stent material over the past three decades, the concern that a permanent metallic prosthesis within the coronary vasculature can serve as a trigger for stent-related adverse events, mainly stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis, still persists. In order to overcome the disadvantages of drug-eluting stents there has been a robust development in the field of bioresorbable coronary scaffolds (BRS). These devices aim to provide temporary scaffolding to restore vessel patency and, after serving its purpose, fully degrade and thus allow restoration of vasomotion along with luminal enlargement. The initial experience with bioresorbable scaffolds in low-risk patients presenting with simple lesions was satisfying and generated optimism among interventional cardiologists by promising better patient outcomes. However, the unrestricted use of these devices in patients presenting with a higher baseline risk and more complex lesions came at the cost of alarmingly high rates of adverse cardiac events, especially the late device thrombosis. Although its non-inferiority compared to metallic everolimus-eluting stents was formally met in the clinical trials, there was a clear trend towards an increased occurrence of myocardial infarction and device thrombosis during the first year after device implantation, which persisted even at long-term follow-up raising concern on the future of BRS. This review article discusses the development, design, clinical data, and future directions in the field of BRS.
生物可吸收冠状动脉支架:目前的证据状态
第二代药物洗脱支架目前被认为是接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的冠状动脉疾病患者的标准护理。尽管在过去的三十年里,支架技术和支架材料都有了显著的进步,但人们仍然担心冠状动脉血管内的永久性金属假体可能引发支架相关的不良事件,主要是支架血栓形成和支架内再狭窄。为了克服药物洗脱支架的缺点,生物可吸收冠状动脉支架(BRS)得到了蓬勃的发展。这些装置的目的是提供临时支架来恢复血管通畅,在达到目的后,完全降解,从而恢复血管舒缩和管腔扩大。生物可吸收支架治疗表现为简单病变的低危患者的初步经验令人满意,并且通过承诺更好的患者预后,使介入心脏病专家感到乐观。然而,在基线风险较高和病变更复杂的患者中无限制地使用这些器械,代价是不良心脏事件的发生率高得惊人,尤其是晚期器械血栓形成。虽然其与金属依维莫司洗脱支架的非劣性在临床试验中得到了正式的满足,但在植入支架后的第一年,心肌梗死和器械血栓的发生率有明显增加的趋势,即使在长期随访中也存在这种趋势,这引起了对BRS未来的关注。本文综述了BRS的发展、设计、临床数据和未来发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信