Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Facing Old Problems, Raising New Hopes

  • Interventional Cardiology (SR Bailey and T Helmy, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In this review, we discuss about the reasons behind the failure of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) device and about the challenges the future holds for the next generation of the bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) technology.

Recent Findings

Absorb BVS was burdened by intrinsic structural limitations which resulted in augmented rates of device thrombosis and clinical adverse events compared to current-generation metallic stent. Nevertheless, new generation devices with novel design and materials are in development.

Summary

Second generation BRS have enhanced mechanical strength, smaller footprints, less thrombogenicity and modified bioresorption. These features, paired with proper patient and lesion selection and optimal “user-friendly” implant techniques, could possibly overcome the previous BRS generation limitations, rekindling physicians, and industry interest on this promising technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Kereiakes DJ, Yoshinobu O, Serruys Patrick W, Stone Gregg W. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for coronary revascularization. Circulation. 2016;134(2):168–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Räber L, Ueki Y. Bioresorbable scaffolds: unfulfilled prophecies. Circulation. 2019;140(23):1917–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. •• Byrne RA, Stefanini GG, Capodanno D, Onuma Y, Baumbach A, Escaned J, et al. Report of an ESC-EAPCI Task Force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary. 2018;13(13):1574-1586. EAS-EAPCI Task Force executive summary which includes recommendations concerning the clinical use of BRS, as well as recommendations for preclinical and clinical evaluation before approval of these devices.

  4. Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Metzger C, Caputo RP, Rizik DG, Teirstein PS, et al. 3-year clinical outcomes with Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffolds: the ABSORB III trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(23):2852–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, van der Schaaf RJ, Arkenbout EK, IJsselmuiden AJ, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(24):2319–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jeżewski MP, Kubisa MJ, Eyileten C, De Rosa S, Christ G, Lesiak M, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds—dead end or still a rough diamond? JCM. 2019;8(12):2167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Onuma Y, Dudek D, Thuesen L, Webster M, Nieman K, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Five-year clinical and functional multislice computed tomography angiographic results after coronary implantation of the fully resorbable polymeric everolimus-eluting scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB cohort a trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2013;6(10):999–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Serruys PW, Ormiston J, van Geuns R-J, de Bruyne B, Dudek D, Christiansen E, et al. A polylactide bioresorbable scaffold eluting everolimus for treatment of coronary stenosis: 5-year follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(7):766–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Puricel S, Cuculi F, Weissner M, Schmermund A, Jamshidi P, Nyffenegger T, et al. Bioresorbable coronary scaffold thrombosis: multicenter comprehensive analysis of clinical presentation, mechanisms, and predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(8):921–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Capodanno D, Gori T, Nef H, Latib A, Mehilli J, Lesiak M, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry. EuroIntervention. 2015;10(11):1144–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Abizaid A, Ribamar Costa J, Bartorelli AL, Whitbourn R, van Geuns RJ, Chevalier B, et al. The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelve-month clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled. EuroIntervention. 2015;10(12):1396–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Ndrepepa G, Kufner S, Wiebe J, Repp J, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet. f2016;387(10018):537–44.

  14. Ali ZA, Serruys PW, Kimura T, Gao R, Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, et al. 2-year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy. Lancet. 2017;390(10096):760–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ali ZA, Runlin G, Takeshi K, Yoshinobu O, Kereiakes Dean J, Ellis Stephen G, et al. Three-year outcomes with the Absorb Bioresorbable scaffold. Circulation. 2018;137(5):464–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. •• Stone GW, Kimura T, Gao R, Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Onuma Y, et al. Time-varying outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold during 5-year follow-up: a systematic meta-analysis and individual patient data pooled study. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(12):1261–9. This study provides the longest follow up data on the first four ABSORB RCTs. Outcomes were examined through 5-year follow-up and between 0 to 3 and 3 to 5 years.

  17. Stone GW, Abizaid A, Onuma Y, Seth A, Gao R, Ormiston J, et al. Effect of technique on outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: analysis from the ABSORB trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(23):2863–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Gori T, Metzger DC, Stein B, Erickson M, et al. Blinded outcomes and angina assessment of coronary bioresorbable scaffolds: 30-day and 1-year results from the ABSORB IV randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10157):1530–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smits PC, West EJ. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus metallic drug-eluting stent in patients at high risk of restenosis: the COMPARE-ABSORB randomized clinical trial. [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 26]. EuroIntervention. 2020.

  20. Räber L, Ueki Y. Understanding the bioresorbable vascular scaffold Achilles heel. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2020;13(1):128–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sakamoto A, Jinnouchi H, Torii S, Virmani R, Finn A. Understanding the impact of stent and scaffold material and strut design on coronary artery thrombosis from the basic and clinical points of view. Bioengineering. 2018;5(3):71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. •• Onuma Y, Honda Y, Asano T, Shiomi H, Kozuma K, Ozaki Y, et al. Randomized comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and metallic stent. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020;13(1):116–27. This multimodality serial imaging study reports on findings including angiography, OCT and IVUS up to 3 years from the ABSORB Japan study. It provides important lessons on the mechanisms underlying the device structural limitations, explaining the reduced clinical efficacy and safety.

  23. Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Sotomi Y, Cequier A, Carrié D, Piek JJ, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10059):2479–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Capodanno D, Angiolillo DJ. Antiplatelet therapy after implantation of Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2017;10(5):425–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abizaid A, Costa RA, Schofer J, Ormiston J, Maeng M, Witzenbichler B, et al. Serial multimodality imaging and 2-year clinical outcomes of the novel DESolve novolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold system for the treatment of single de novo coronary lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2016;9(6):565–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mattesini A, Bartolini S, Sorini Dini C, Valente S, Parodi G, Stolcova M, et al. The DESolve novolimus bioresorbable scaffold: from bench to bedside. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(Suppl 9):S950–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bernard C, Alexandre A, Didier C, Norbert F, Matthias L, Joachim W-A, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes with a novel radiopaque Sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold. Circulation. 2019;12(6):e007283.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Koltowski L, Tomaniak M, Ochijewicz D, Maksym J, Roleder T, Zaleska M, et al. Second generation, sirolimus-eluting, bioresorbable Tyrocore scaffold implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: baseline OCT and 30-day clinical outcomes – a FANTOM STEMI pilot study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96(1):E1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Regazzoli D, Leone PP, Colombo A, Latib A. New generation bioresorbable scaffold technologies: an update on novel devices and clinical results. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(Suppl 9):S979–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Seth A, Onuma Y, Chandra P, Bahl VK, Manjunath CN, Mahajan AU, et al. Three-year clinical and two-year multimodality imaging outcomes of a thin-strut sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: MeRes-1 trial. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(7):607–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ozaki Y, Garcia-Garcia HM, Shlofmitz E, Hideo-Kajita A, Waksman R. Second-generation drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold: review of the clinical evidence. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020;21(1):127–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Verheye S, Wlodarczak A, Montorsi P, Torzewski J, Bennett J, Haude M, et al. BIOSOLVE-IV-registry: safety and performance of the Magmaris scaffold: 12-month outcomes of the first cohort of 1,075 patients. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions [published online ahead of print, 2020 Sep 3]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020.

  33. Manel S, Fernando A, Angel C, Sebastián R, Pascual B, Antonio S, et al. Magnesium-based resorbable scaffold versus permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2019;140(23):1904–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Han Y, Xu B, Fu G, Wang X, Xu K, Jin C, et al. A randomized trial comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and metallic everolimus-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2018;11(3):260–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mangieri A, Colombo A. Should we stop using bioresorbable scaffolds in coronary revascularisation? EuroIntervention. 2019;15(1):28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Waksman R, Forrestal B. Bioresorbable scaffolds: did we jump the gun? EuroIntervention. 2020;16(2):e103–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Science, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128, Padova, Italy

    Giulia Masiero, Giulio Rodinò, Mauro Boiago, Yuji Matsuda & Giuseppe Tarantini

  2. Department of cardiovascular Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Science, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    Yuji Matsuda

Authors
  1. Giulia Masiero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giulio Rodinò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mauro Boiago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuji Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giuseppe Tarantini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulia Masiero.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Giuseppe Tarantini received speakers’ fees from Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, and GADA. The other authors declare no conflicts regarding this publication.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Interventional Cardiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masiero, G., Rodinò, G., Boiago, M. et al. Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Facing Old Problems, Raising New Hopes. Curr Cardiol Rep 23, 15 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-021-01447-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-021-01447-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation