Are bioresorbable coronary scaffolds ready for a comeback?

03/04/24

Take Home Messages
Given the history with the first-generation BRS, large-scale randomised trials are required before the clinical community will adopt the next generation of devices. The evidence currently available is insufficient to justify the implantation of BRS outside of clinical trials. Given the efficacy and safety of current DES, even with reduced antiplatelet therapy, there is no urgent need to run this risk again, allowing for a robust resurgence of BRS technology.

Take Home Messages

Given the history with the first-generation BRS, large-scale randomised trials are required before the clinical community will adopt the next generation of devices.
The evidence currently available is insufficient to justify the implantation of BRS outside of clinical trials.
Given the efficacy and safety of current DES, even with reduced antiplatelet therapy, there is no urgent need to run this risk again, allowing for a robust resurgence of BRS technology.

Introduction

In percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the concept of securing metal free angioplasty without leaving behind a permanent foreign body is highly attractive to patients and physicians and promises several advantages. However, target lesion failure and device thrombosis were important concerns with first-generation Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) leading to low rates of adoption in clinical practice (1-12). New iterations, incorporating improvements such as a smaller strut thickness have been proposed and evaluated in early investigations. However, it remains unclear whether these modifications are sufficient to achieve outcomes comparable to those of metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) while preserving the benefits of resorption (10-12).

Are bioresorbable coronary scaffolds ready for a comeback?

Introduction

BCS Online Resources

Advertise your course in our community calendar.

Save the Date: 3 - 5 June 2024

Related Links