ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Five-year comparative study of thin-strut rapamycin-eluting bioabsorbable scaffold with metallic drug-eluting stent in porcine coronary artery.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of rapamycin-eluting stents on in-stent restenosis and early inflammatory response in coronary artery narrowing animal models.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), optical coherence tomography (OCT), histomorphometry, and pharmacokinetics, this study tried to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Biomagic rapamycin-eluting bioabsorbable scaffold (BVS) in non-atherosclerotic porcine coronary arteries. Background: Biomagic BVS is a new generation of thin-strut bioabsorbable scaffold. We conducted comparative study detailing pathological response, safety and efficacy of Biomagic BVS and the Firebird2 rapamycin-eluting cobalt-based alloy stent (DES) in a porcine coronary artery model. The animals were followed up at 14 days, 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, and 60 months after stent implantation. Methods: A total of 143 devices (95 Biomagic and 48 Firebird2) were implanted in 2 or 3 main coronary arteries of 76 nonatherosclerotic swine and examined by QCA, OCT, light microscopy, and pharmacokinetics analyses at various time points. Results: Vascular responses to Biomagic and Firebird2 were largely comparable at all time points, with struts being sequestered within the neointima. The degree of inflammation of both devices was mild to moderate, although the Biomagic score was higher at 14 days to 24 months. However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups except 14 days. At each follow-up time point, the percentage of area stenosis in the Biomagic group was greater than that in the Firebird 2 group, but there was no statistical difference between the two groups at 3 and 12 months. The extent of fibrin deposition was similar between Biomagic and Firebird2, which peaked at 1 month and decreased rapidly thereafter. Pharmacokinetic study showed that coronary tissue sirolimus concentration remained above 2 ng/mg of tissue at 28 day. Histomorphometry showed expansile remodeling of Biomagic-implanted arteries starting after 12 months, and lumen area was significantly greater in Biomagic than Firebird2 at 36 and 42 months. These changes correlated with dismantling of Biomagic seen after 12 months. OCT images confirmed that degradation of Biomagic was complete by 36 months. Conclusions: Biomagic demonstrates comparable long-term safety to Firebird2 in porcine coronary arteries with mild to moderate inflammation. Although Biomagic was associated with greater percent stenosis relative to Firebird2 within 36 months, expansile remodeling was observed after 12 months in Biomagic with significantly greater lumen area at ≥36 months. Scaffold resorption is considered complete at 36 months.
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.