Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Ready for a Rematch?

Oludamilola Akinmolayemi, Alexander Levy, Swagata Patnaik, Gregg W Stone, Solomon W Bienstock

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Oludamilola Akinmolayemi *Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The Zena and Michael A. Weiner Cardiovascular Institute, New York, NY, USA.

Alexander Levy *Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The Zena and Michael A. Weiner Cardiovascular Institute, New York, NY, USA.

Swagata PatnaikMontefiore Einstein Center for Heart and Vascular Care , New York, NY, USA.

Gregg W StoneIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The Zena and Michael A. Weiner Cardiovascular Institute, New York, NY, USA.

Solomon W BienstockIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The Zena and Michael A. Weiner Cardiovascular Institute, New York, NY, USA. solomon.bienstock@mountsinai.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is a promising technology with clear theoretical benefits. Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the early generation of this technology, however, demonstrated issues translating these benefits from the abstract into the clinical realm. This review covers the outcomes beginning with the first-generation scaffolds and provides updates on advances made with newer technologies and evolved approaches to platform delivery. RECENT

findingsPooled individual patient data from the ABSORB studies with 5-year follow-up was published in early 2025, showing higher event rates in the BVS group driven by events in the first three years of follow-up. Events after three years were the same or lower compared to traditional metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). BVS technology is not yet ready for clinical primetime. However, there is need for improved scaffold technology and new BVS will again need to be tested against metallic DES in large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up.

Indexed as

Absorbable ImplantsCoronary Artery DiseaseDrug-Eluting StentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionTissue ScaffoldsHumansProsthesis DesignRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBioresorbable scaffoldCoronary arteryCoronary interventionMyocardial ischemiaRevascularization

Identifiers

PMID41632412

DOI10.1007/s11886-025-02291-y

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.