ReviewJournal of cardiovascular translational research2014
The effects of novel, bioresorbable scaffolds on coronary vascular pathophysiology.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents on short- and mid-term target lesion outcomes in patients after PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System in the Treatment of Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy: the CART (Cardiac Allograft Reparative Therapy) Prospective Multicenter Pilot Study.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2016Trial
- Optimization of Magnetic Abrasive Finishing Parameters for Co-Cr Alloy Vascular Stent Tubing Using PSO-SVM.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Optimization of Magnetic Finishing Process and Surface Quality Research for Inner Wall of MP35N Cobalt-Chromium Alloy Vascular Stent Tubing Based on Plasma-Fused AlMicromachines · 2025Article
- Degradation of a novel magnesium alloy-based bioresorbable coronary scaffold in a swine coronary artery model.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2024Article
- A heparin-rosuvastatin-loaded P(LLA-CL) nanofiber-covered stent inhibits inflammatory smooth-muscle cell viability to reduce in-stent stenosis and thrombosis.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2021Article
- The role of optical coherence tomography guidance in scaffold versus stent optimization.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2020Article
- Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Current Technology and Future Perspectives.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2020Review
- Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - basic concepts and clinical outcome.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2016Review
- Review and Updates in Regenerative and Personalized Medicine, Preclinical Animal Models, and Clinical Care in Cardiovascular Medicine.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has rapidly evolved over the past 30 years as technology has sought to improve clinical outcomes by addressing pathophysiologic complications arising from the intervention. Stents were designed to resolve the drawbacks of balloon angioplasty by providing radial support to prevent vessel recoil, by sealing coronary dissections, and by preventing abrupt vessel closure. The conceptualization of an ideal drug-eluting fully bioresorbable scaffold (BRS), whether metallic or polymeric, would theoretically address the adverse aspects of permanent metallic stents. In this review of the literature, we will discuss the impact these novel fully BRS platforms have on vascular pathophysiology following PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24800874What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.