ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025
Long-Term Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffold: A SCAAR Study.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Functional Vascular Stents for Cardiovascular Therapy with Drug Delivery and Computational Design.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- An Ang-1-releasing self-assembling peptide coating for inflammation modulation and suppression of smooth muscle proliferation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Revisiting Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Light of the SCAAR Study.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bioresorbable scaffolds have been associated with inferior outcomes compared to contemporary permanent metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) for percutaneous coronary intervention, particularly within the initial years after implantation; however, their long-term performance remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of Swedish patients treated with Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds (Abbott) vs contemporary DES, assessing device-related complications and examining potential late benefits. The findings seek to clarify the balance between early risks and long-term advantages of bioresorbable scaffolds in clinical practice. Methods: Complete data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) was used to identify all patients receiving Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds or contemporary DES from November 4, 2011 to March 2, 2018. After 1:2 propensity score matching against modern DES, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, in-stent restenosis, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality were analyzed. Landmark analyses were performed from 3 years onward. All patients were followed until January 17, 2022. Results: Among 1960/2406 propensity score matched patients/stents (583/802 Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds and 1377/1604 contemporary DES), bioresorbable scaffolds were associated with significantly higher early stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and in-stent restenosis rates. All-cause mortality and myocardial infarction rates did not differ significantly over the entire follow-up. Beyond 3 years, the device-related outcomes converged, while myocardial infarction rates were lower with Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds than contemporary DES. Conclusions: Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds showed inferior early clinical performance compared with contemporary DES, but after 3 years, device-related outcomes were similar, while myocardial infarction rates favored Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds. These findings suggest a complex trade-off between early device-related events and potential long-term benefits of bioresorbable scaffold-mediated vascular restoration.
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.