ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2019
Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds-Dead End or Still a Rough Diamond?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy following a brief DAPT vs. prolonged 12-month DAPT in ACS patients post-PCI: a meta-analysis of RCTs.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021Pooled it
- Minimally overlapping technique of bioresorbable scaffolds in a porcine coronary artery model: proof-of-concept study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bioresorbable scaffolds advances, challenges, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Biodegradable Stents in the Treatment of Arterial Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The unpredictable resorption of bioresorbable scaffolds-A tale of two ABSORBs.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- In Vivo Efficacy of an Adhesive Bioresorbable Patch to Treat Aortic Dissections.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2024Article
- 48-Month Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in an All-Comers Population with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Chronic Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Evolution of Coronary Stent Platforms: A Brief Overview of Currently Used Drug-Eluting Stents.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Thermo-Mechanical Characterization of 4D-Printed Biodegradable Shape-Memory Scaffolds Using Four-Axis 3D-Printing System.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Preclinical Evaluation of an Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Via a Long-Term Rabbit Iliac Artery Model.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2023Article
- Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Facing Old Problems, Raising New Hopes.Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- Plasma Trimethylamine-N-Oxide Is an Independent Predictor of Long-Term Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary interventions with stent-based restorations of vessel patency have become the gold standard in the treatment of acute coronary states. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been designed to combine the efficiency of drug-eluting stents (DES) at the time of implantation and the advantages of a lack of foreign body afterwards. Complete resolution of the scaffold was intended to enable the restoration of vasomotor function and reduce the risk of device thrombosis. While early reports demonstrated superiority of BVS over DES, larger-scale application and longer observation exposed major concerns about their use, including lower radial strength and higher risk of thrombosis resulting in higher rate of major adverse cardiac events. Further focus on procedural details and research on the second generation of BVS with novel properties did not allow to unequivocally challenge position of DES. Nevertheless, BVS still have a chance to present superiority in distinctive indications. This review presents an outlook on the available first and second generation BVS and a summary of results of clinical trials on their use. It discusses explanations for unfavorable outcomes, proposed enhancement techniques and a potential niche for the use of BVS.
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.