Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28643297›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2017

Recommendations for the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions : 2017 revision.

B Everaert, J J Wykrzykowska, J Koolen, P van der Harst, P den Heijer, J P Henriques, R van der Schaaf, B de Smet, S H Hofma, R Diletti and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Early "Scars" and Long-Term Promise of Bioresorbable Scaffolds: A Decade of Evidence From SCAAR.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The first generation ABSORB BVS scaffold; to be or not to be?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

B EveraertThoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J J WykrzykowskaAcademic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J KoolenCatharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
P van der HarstUniversity Medical Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
P den HeijerAmphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
J P HenriquesAcademic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R van der SchaafOnze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B de SmetMeander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
S H HofmaMedical Center, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
R DilettiThoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
A WeeversAlbert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
J HoorntjeMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
P SmitsMaasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
R J van GeunsThoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. r.vangeuns@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo eliminate some of the potential late limitations of permanent metallic stents, the bioresorbable coronary stents or 'bioresorbable vascular scaffolds' (BVS) have been developed.

methodsWe reviewed all currently available clinical data on BVS implantation.

resultsSince the 2015 position statement on the appropriateness of BVS in percutaneous coronary interventions, several large randomised trials have been presented. These have demonstrated that achieving adequate 1 and 2 year outcomes with these first-generation BVS is not straightforward. These first adequately powered studies in non-complex lesions showed worse results if standard implantation techniques were used for these relatively thick scaffolds. Post-hoc analyses hypothesise that outcomes similar to current drug-eluting stents are still possible if aggressive lesion preparation, adequate sizing and high-pressure postdilatation are implemented rigorously. As long as this has not been confirmed in prospective studies the usage should be restricted to experienced centres with continuous outcome monitoring. For more complex lesions, results are even more disappointing and usage should be discouraged. When developed, newer generation scaffolds with thinner struts or faster resorption rates are expected to improve outcomes. In the meantime prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, beyond one year) is recommended in an individualised approach for patients treated with current generation BVS.

conclusionThe new 2017 recommendations downgrade and limit the use of the current BVS to experienced centres within dedicated registries using the updated implantation protocol and advise the prolonged usage of DAPT. In line with these recommendations the manufacturer does not supply devices to the hospitals without such registries in place.

Indexed as

Absorb BVSBioresorbable vascular scaffoldPercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID28643297
PMCPMC5513994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.