ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2018
Impact of PSP Technique on Clinical Outcomes Following Bioresorbable Scaffolds Implantation.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnesium-based resorbable scaffold vs permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 3-year results of the MAGSTEMI randomised controlled trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Trial
- Five-year angiographic, OCT and clinical outcomes of a randomized comparison of everolimus and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022Trial
- Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Revascularization: From Concept to Clinical Maturity.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Current situation and overview of resorbable magnesium scaffolds: a perspective for overcoming the remaining issues of polymeric bioresorbable scaffold.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Review
- A real-world experience with a thin-strut bioresorbable vascular scaffold system: a single-centre study.AsiaIntervention · 2025Article
- Two-Year Outcomes for Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated with Magmaris and Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Large-Vessel Lesions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Magnesium bioresorbable scaffold (Magmaris) versus polymer biodegradable ultrathin drug-eluting stent (Ultimaster) in acute coronary syndrome. Mid-term outcomes (2 years).Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2024Article
- Long-Term Outcomes After Implantation of Magnesium-Based Bioresorbable Scaffolds-Insights From an All-Comer Registry.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Long-term clinical results of biodegradable vascular scaffold ABSORB BVS™ using the PSP-technique in patients with acute coronary syndrome.Cardiology journal · 2020Article
- Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds-Dead End or Still a Rough Diamond?Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Incidental Finding of Strut Malapposition Is a Predictor of Late and Very Late Thrombosis in Coronary Bioresorbable Scaffolds.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Chitosan for Tissue Engineering.Advances in experimental medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were introduced in clinical practice to overcome the long-term limitations of newer-generation drug-eluting stents. Despite some initial promising results of the Absorb BRS, safety concerns have led to the discontinuation of the commercialization of this device. Several retrospective studies have assessed the impact of the so-called Pre-dilation, Sizing and Post-dilation (PSP) technique concluding that an optimal PSP technique can improve clinical outcomes following BRS implantation. In this article, the definition of the PSP technique, and the current evidence of its impact on clinical outcomes are put in perspective. Additionality, the relationship between the PSP technique and the dual-antiplatelet therapy to prevent scaffold thrombosis is addressed. Finally, the future perspectives of BRS technology in clinical practice are commented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.