ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2024
Degradation of a novel magnesium alloy-based bioresorbable coronary scaffold in a swine coronary artery model.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning from Biodegradable Coronary Stents: Future Directions for TPVR Biodegradable Stents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Standard and Non-standard Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Ischemic Heart Disease and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Clinical Review.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- A hierarchical MgFBioactive materials · 2025Article
- Antithrombotic Management in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Clinical Review.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study is to investigate the safety, feasibility, and degradation profile of a novel Mg alloy-based bioresorbable coronary scaffold (JFK-PRODUCT BRS) with thin struts (110 μm). Polymer- or Mg alloy-based BRSs have not replaced nondegradable metal stents because of the higher prevalence of scaffold thrombosis and restenosis in clinical practice; these poor clinical outcomes were due to inadequate scaffold designs, including thick struts (more than 150 μm) and their inappropriate degradation processes. Fourteen healthy pigs received 17 JFK-PRODUCT BRSs in the coronary arteries and were sacrificed at 1, 6, 12, 18, and 26 months after implantation. Angiography, optical coherence tomography, microfocus X-ray computed tomography (µCT), scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM-EDX), and histopathological evaluation were performed. The JFK-PRODUCT had a median percent late recoil of 11.28% at 1 month. The µCT observation confirmed that scaffold discontinuity reached 64.8% at 12 months with increased scaffold inner area thereafter, suggesting artery positive remodeling. The inflammation was mild, peaked at 18 months, and decreased thereafter. The SEM-EDX analysis demonstrated gradual degradation of the scaffold with formation of inorganic deposits, presumed to be calcium phosphates. It also revealed the disappearance of calcium phosphates at 26 months, achieving almost complete replacement of the scaffold by biocomponents. The current study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of JFK-PRODUCT with a lower acute recoil rate despite its thin struts. The scaffolds were almost completely disappeared at 26 months after implantation.
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.