ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2020
Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Contemporary Status and Future Directions.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- First-in-human evaluation of a novel ultrathin sirolimus-eluting iron bioresorbable scaffold: 3-year outcomes of the IBS-FIM trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Trial
- Eco-Friendly In-Situ Zwitterionization of Stent Metals with Phosphonic Sulfobetaine Copolymers for Durable Antibiofouling and Hemocompatibility.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2026Article
- State-of-the-Art Review on Finite Element Analysis Applied to Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents: Examining the Present and Looking Ahead to the Future.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Antithrombotic Polymers: A Narrative Review on Current and Future Strategies for Their Design, Synthesis, and Application.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Exploring the Complexities of Bone Implants and Stents: Factors Influencing Successful Tissue Integration.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Coronary Bifurcation PCI-Part II: Advanced Considerations.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- DynamX Bioadaptor as an Emerging and Promising Innovation in Interventional Cardiology.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Bioresorbable scaffolds advances, challenges, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- A real-world experience with a thin-strut bioresorbable vascular scaffold system: a single-centre study.AsiaIntervention · 2025Article
- Biodegradable Stents in the Treatment of Arterial Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- 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
- Optimizing the Biocompatibility of PLLA Stent Materials: Strategy with Biomimetic Coating.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
- Advancements in tissue engineering for cardiovascular health: a biomedical engineering perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- 3D-Printed Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-Biomacromolecules · 2023Article
- Clinical research of drug-coated balloon after rotational atherectomy for severe coronary artery calcification.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Iron corroded granules inhibiting vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation.Materials today. Bio · 2022Article
- Long-Term Performance of the Magmaris Drug-Eluting Bioresorbable Metallic Scaffold in All-Comers Patients' Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Curcumin attenuates inflammation of Macrophage-derived foam cells treated with Poly-L-lactic acid degradation via PPARγ signaling pathway.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention, which is safe, effective, and timely, has become an important treatment for coronary artery diseases and has been widely used in clinical practice. However, there are still some problems that urgently need to be solved. Permanent vessel caging through metallic implants not only prevents the process of positive vessel remodeling and the restoration of vascular physiology but also makes the future revascularization of target vessels more difficult. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) have been developed as a potential solution to avoid the above adverse reactions caused by permanent metallic devices. BRSs provide temporary support to the vessel wall in the short term and then gradually degrade over time to restore the natural state of coronary arteries. Nonetheless, long-term follow-up of large-scale trials has drawn considerable attention to the safety of BRSs, and the significantly increased risk of late scaffold thrombosis (ScT) limits its clinical application. In this review, we summarize the current status and clinical experiences of BRSs to understand the application prospects and limitations of these devices. In addition, we focus on ScT after implantation, as it is currently the primary drawback of BRS. We also analyze the causes of ScT and discuss improvements required to overcome this serious drawback and to move the field forward.
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.