Fully bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: lessons learned and future directions

Nature Reviews Cardiology

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 286-304

  Jinnouchi, Hiroyuki ^a   Torii, Sho ^a   Sakamoto, Atsushi ^a   Kolodgie, Frank D ^a   Virmani, Renu ^a   Finn, Aloke V ^a  

^a CVPATH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BLOOD VESSEL WALL; CORONARY ARTERY BLOOD FLOW; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FOLLOW UP; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FOREIGN BODY REACTION; HUMAN; INFLAMMATION; LONG TERM CARE; MEDICAL DEVICE COMPLICATION; MICRO-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NEOATHEROSCLEROSIS; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SAFETY PROCEDURE; STENT MALAPPOSITION; STENT THROMBOSIS; TARGET LESION REVASCULARIZATION; THROMBOSIS; ADVERSE DEVICE EFFECT; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ADVERSE EVENT; BIODEGRADABLE IMPLANT; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DEVICES; DRUG ELUTING STENT; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PROCEDURES; TISSUE SCAFFOLD;

ABSORBABLE IMPLANTS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; CORONARY DISEASE; DRUG-ELUTING STENTS; HUMANS; LONG TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; TISSUE SCAFFOLDS;

EID: 85058631146     PISSN: 17595002     EISSN: 17595010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41569-018-0124-7     Document Type: Review

References (114)

1. Fischman, D. L. et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 331, 496–501 (1994).
2. Serruys, P. W. et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 331, 489–495 (1994).
3. Stefanini, G. G. & Holmes, D. R. Jr. Drug-eluting coronary-artery stents. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 254–265 (2013).
4. Sousa, J. E. et al. Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 103, 192–195 (2001).
5. Serruys, P. W., Garcia-Garcia, H. M. & Onuma, Y. From metallic cages to transient bioresorbable scaffolds: change in paradigm of coronary revascularization in the upcoming decade? Eur. Heart J. 33, 16–25b (2012).
6. Joner, M. et al. Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 48, 193–202 (2006).
7. Tamai, H. et al. Initial and 6-month results of biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents in humans. Circulation 102, 399–404 (2000).
8. Ormiston, J. A. et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial. Lancet 371, 899–907 (2008).
9. Sotomi, Y. et al. Bioresorbable scaffold: the emerging reality and future directions. Circ. Res. 120, 1341–1352 (2017).
10. Nishio, S. et al. Long-term (>10 Years) clinical outcomes of first-in-human biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents: Igaki-Tamai stents. Circulation 125, 2343–2353 (2012).
11. Nishio, S. et al. Decade of histological follow-up for a fully biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid coronary stent (Igaki-Tamai stent) in humans: are bioresorbable scaffolds the answer? Circulation 129, 534–535 (2014).
12. Serruys, P. W. et al. Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold for the treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: 12-month clinical and imaging outcomes. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 58, 1578–1588 (2011).
13. Onuma, Y. et al. Three-year results of clinical follow-up after a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB trial. EuroIntervention 6, 447–453 (2010).
14. Serruys, P. W. et al. Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus drug-eluting vascular scaffold for treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: six-month clinical and imaging outcomes. Circulation 122, 2301–2312 (2010).
15. Ellis, S. G. et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 1905–1915 (2015).
16. Cassese, S. et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 387, 537–544 (2016).
17. Serruys, P. W. 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 388, 2479–2491 (2016).
18. Wykrzykowska, J. J. et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 2319–2328 (2017).
19. Ali, Z. A. 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 390, 760–772 (2017).
20. Onuma, Y. & Serruys, P. W. Bioresorbable scaffold: the advent of a new era in percutaneous coronary and peripheral revascularization? Circulation 123, 779–797 (2011).
21. Ormiston, J. A., Webber, B., Ubod, B., Darremont, O. & Webster, M. W. An independent bench comparison of two bioresorbable drug-eluting coronary scaffolds (Absorb and DESolve) with a durable metallic drug-eluting stent (ML8/Xpedition). EuroIntervention 11, 60–67 (2015).
22. Simon, C., Palmaz, J. C. & Sprague, E. A. Influence of topography on endothelialization of stents: clues for new designs. J. Long Term Eff. Med. Implants 10, 143–151 (2000).
23. Otsuka, F. et al. Long-term safety of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the cobalt-chromium XIENCE V stent in a porcine coronary artery model. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 330–342 (2014).
24. Lane, J. P. et al. Lumen gain and restoration of pulsatility after implantation of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold in porcine coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 688–695 (2014).
25. Koppara, T. et al. Thrombogenicity and early vascular healing response in metallic biodegradable polymer-based and fully bioabsorbable drug-eluting stents. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 8, e002427 (2015).
26. Joner, M. et al. Endothelial cell recovery between comparator polymer-based drug-eluting stents. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 52, 333–342 (2008).
27. Davies, P. F. Hemodynamic shear stress and the endothelium in cardiovascular pathophysiology. Nat. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 6, 16–26 (2009).
28. LaDisa, J. F. Jr et al. Alterations in regional vascular geometry produced by theoretical stent implantation influence distributions of wall shear stress: analysis of a curved coronary artery using 3D computational fluid dynamics modeling. Biomed. Eng. Online 5, 40 (2006).
29. Richter, Y. & Edelman, E. R. Cardiology is flow. Circulation 113, 2679–2682 (2006).
30. Sanchez, O. D. et al. Pathological aspects of bioresorbable stent implantation. EuroIntervention 11 (Suppl. V), V159–V165 (2015).
31. Tricot, O. et al. Relation between endothelial cell apoptosis and blood flow direction in human atherosclerotic plaques. Circulation 101, 2450–2453 (2000).
32. Tenekecioglu, E. et al. Preclinical assessment of the endothelial shear stress in porcine-based models following implantation of two different bioresorbable scaffolds: effect of scaffold design on the local haemodynamic micro-environment. EuroIntervention 12, 1296 (2016).
33. Kolandaivelu, K. et al. Stent thrombogenicity early in high-risk interventional settings is driven by stent design and deployment and protected by polymer-drug coatings. Circulation 123, 1400–1409 (2011).
34. Nakano, M. et al. Human autopsy study of drug-eluting stents restenosis: histomorphological predictors and neointimal characteristics. Eur. Heart J. 34, 3304–3313 (2013).
35. Kimura, T. et al. A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan. Eur. Heart J. 36, 3332–3342 (2015).
36. Sabate, M. et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial. Eur. Heart J. 37, 229–240 (2016).
37. Gao, R. et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB China trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 66, 2298–2309 (2015).
38. Puricel, S. et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 65, 791–801 (2015).
39. Serruys, P. W. et al. A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 385, 43–54 (2015).
40. Montone, R. A. et al. Temporal trends in adverse events after everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Circulation 135, 2145–2154 (2017).
41. Ali, Z. A. et al. Three-year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold: individual-patient-data meta-analysis from the ABSORB randomized trials. Circulation 137, 464–479 (2018).
42. Tijssen, R. Y. G. et al. Complete two-year follow-up with formal non-inferiority testing on primary outcomes of the AIDA trial comparing the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with the XIENCE drug-eluting metallic stent in routine PCI. EuroIntervention 14, e426–e433 (2018).
43. Chevalier, B. et al. Four-year follow-up of the randomised comparison between an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II Trial). EuroIntervention 13, 1561–1564 (2018).
44. Ortega-Paz, L. et al. Predilation, sizing and post-dilation scoring in patients undergoing everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation for prediction of cardiac adverse events: development and internal validation of the PSP score. EuroIntervention 12, 2110–2117 (2017).
45. Yamaji, K., Raber, L. & Windecker, S. What determines long-term outcomes using fully bioresorbable scaffolds – the device, the operator or the lesion? EuroIntervention 12, 1684–1687 (2017).
46. Stone, G. W. et al. Effect of technique on outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: analysis from the ABSORB trials. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 70, 2863–2874 (2017).
47. Yahagi, K. et al. Comparison of a drug-free early programmed dismantling PDLLA bioresorbable scaffold and a metallic stent in a porcine coronary artery model at 3-year follow-up. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 6, e005693 (2017).
48. Lafont, A. ARTDIVA in BioResorbable vascular scaffolds. Presented at BRS, Boston, MA, USA (2014).
49. Verheye, S. et al. A next-generation bioresorbable coronary scaffold system: from bench to first clinical evaluation: 6- and 12-month clinical and multimodality imaging results. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 89–99 (2014).
50. Abizaid, A. 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. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, 565–574 (2016).
51. Stefan, V. TCT 16: prospective, multicenter evaluation of the DESolve novolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold – imaging outcomes and five-year clinical and imaging results. TCTMD https://www.tctmd.com/slide/tct-16-prospective-multicenter-evaluation-desolve-novolimus-eluting-bioresorbable-coronary (2017).
52. Nef, H. et al. A multicenter post-marketing evaluation of the Elixir DESolve((R)) Novolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold system: first results from the DESolve PMCF study. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 10.1002/ccd.27550 (2018).
53. Stefan, V. DESolve Nx, Cx, and Amity: a family of progressively thinner-strut PLLA-based BRS with novel properties. TCTMD https://www.tctmd.com/slide/desolve-nx-cx-and-amity-family-progressively-thinner-strut-plla-based-brs-novel-properties (2017).
54. Boeder, N. F. et al. Impact of strut thickness on acute mechanical performance: a comparison study using optical coherence tomography between DESolve 150 and DESolve 100. Int. J. Cardiol. 246, 74–79 (2017).
55. Regazzoli, D., Leone, P. P., Colombo, A. & Latib, A. New generation bioresorbable scaffold technologies: an update on novel devices and clinical results. J. Thorac Dis. 9, S979–S985 (2017).
56. Abizaid, A. et al. 6-month clinical and angiographic outcomes of a novel radiopaque sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: the FANTOM II study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 10, 1832–1838 (2017).
57. Abizaid, A. New 24-month data from the FANTOM II clinical trial and initial results from Fantom BRS expansion trials. revamedical https://www.revamedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/europcr_2018_abizaid_final.pdf (2018).
58. Haude, M. et al. Sustained safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 12-month clinical results and angiographic findings of the BIOSOLVE-II first-in-man trial. Eur. Heart J. 37, 2701–2709 (2016).
59. Erbel, R. et al. Temporary scaffolding of coronary arteries with bioabsorbable magnesium stents: a prospective, non-randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 369, 1869–1875 (2007).
60. Haude, M. et al. Safety and performance of the drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold (DREAMS) in patients with de-novo coronary lesions: 12 month results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial. Lancet 381, 836–844 (2013).
61. Haude, M. et al. Safety and performance of the DRug-Eluting Absorbable Metal Scaffold (DREAMS) in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 3-year results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial. EuroIntervention 12, e160–e166 (2016).
62. Iqbal, J. et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur. Heart J. 35, 765–776 (2014).
63. Wittchow, E. et al. Bioresorbable drug-eluting magnesium-alloy scaffold: design and feasibility in a porcine coronary model. EuroIntervention 8, 1441–1450 (2013).
64. Waksman, R. et al. Second-generation magnesium scaffold Magmaris: device design and preclinical evaluation in a porcine coronary artery model. EuroIntervention 13, 440–449 (2017).
65. Joner, M. et al. Preclinical evaluation of degradation kinetics and elemental mapping of first and second generation bioresorbable magnesium scaffolds. EuroIntervention 14, e1040–e1048 (2018).
66. Waksman, R. et al. Comparison of acute thrombogenicity for metallic and polymeric bioabsorbable scaffolds: Magmaris versus Absorb in a porcine arteriovenous shunt model. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 10, e004762 (2017).
67. Haude, M. et al. Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de-novo coronary artery lesions (BIOSOLVE-II): 6 month results of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, first-in-man trial. Lancet 387, 31–39 (2016).
68. Haude, M. et al. Sustained safety and clinical performance of a drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold up to 24 months: pooled outcomes of BIOSOLVE-II and BIOSOLVE-III. EuroIntervention 13, 432–439 (2017).
69. Wijns, W. Why do we need scaffolds? Presented at EuroPCR, Paris, France (2018).
70. Lee, M. K. Y. New clinical insights from BIOSOLVE-IV. Presented at EuroPCR, Paris, France (2018).
71. Raber, L. et al. Very late scaffold thrombosis: intracoronary imaging and histopathological and spectroscopic findings. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 66, 1901–1914 (2015).
72. Sotomi, Y., Suwannasom, P., Serruys, P. W. & Onuma, Y. Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging. EuroIntervention 12, 1747–1756 (2017).
73. Yamaji, K. et al. Mechanisms of very late bioresorbable scaffold thrombosis: the INVEST registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 70, 2330–2344 (2017).
74. Nakano, M. et al. Causes of early stent thrombosis in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome: an ex vivo human autopsy study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 63, 2510–2520 (2014).
75. Taniwaki, M. et al. Mechanisms of very late drug-eluting stent thrombosis assessed by optical coherence tomography. Circulation 133, 650–660 (2016).
76. Souteyrand, G. et al. Mechanisms of stent thrombosis analysed by optical coherence tomography: insights from the national PESTO French registry. Eur. Heart J. 37, 1208–1216 (2016).
77. Onuma, Y. et al. Incidence and imaging outcomes of acute scaffold disruption and late structural discontinuity after implantation of the Absorb everolimus-eluting fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold: optical coherence tomography assessment in the ABSORB cohort B trial (a clinical evaluation of the bioabsorbable everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 1400–1411 (2014).
78. Foin, N. et al. Incomplete stent apposition causes high shear flow disturbances and delay in neointimal coverage as a function of strut to wall detachment distance: implications for the management of incomplete stent apposition. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 180–189 (2014).
79. Badimon, L., Badimon, J. J., Turitto, V. T., Vallabhajosula, S. & Fuster, V. Platelet thrombus formation on collagen type I. A model of deep vessel injury. Influence of blood rheology, von Willebrand factor, and blood coagulation. Circulation 78, 1431–1442 (1988).
80. Holme, P. A. et al. Shear-induced platelet activation and platelet microparticle formation at blood flow conditions as in arteries with a severe stenosis. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 17, 646–653 (1997).
81. Strony, J., Beaudoin, A., Brands, D. & Adelman, B. Analysis of shear stress and hemodynamic factors in a model of coronary artery stenosis and thrombosis. Am. J. Physiol. 265, H1787–H1796 (1993).
82. Hanson, S. R. & Sakariassen, K. S. Blood flow and antithrombotic drug effects. Am. Heart J. 135, S132–S145 (1998).
83. Iannaccone, M. et al. Optical coherence tomography evaluation of intermediate-term healing of different stent types: systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imag. 18, 159–166 (2017).
84. Nakazawa, G. et al. The pathology of neoatherosclerosis in human coronary implants bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 57, 1314–1322 (2011).
85. Otsuka, F. et al. Pathology of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in humans. Circulation 129, 211–223 (2014).
86. Moriyama, N. et al. Neoatherosclerosis 5 years after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 71, 1882–1893 (2018).
87. Zeng, Y. et al. Serial assessment of tissue precursors and progression of coronary calcification analyzed by fusion of IVUS and OCT: 5-year follow-up of scaffolded and nonscaffolded arteries. JACC Cardiovasc. Imag. 10, 1151–1161 (2017).
88. Kugiyama, K. et al. Nitric oxide activity is deficient in spasm arteries of patients with coronary spastic angina. Circulation 94, 266–271 (1996).
89. Yasue, H., Matsuyama, K., Okumura, K., Morikami, Y. & Ogawa, H. Responses of angiographically normal human coronary arteries to intracoronary injection of acetylcholine by age and segment. Possible role of early coronary atherosclerosis. Circulation 81, 482–490 (1990).
90. Dudek, D. et al. Vasomotor response to nitroglycerine over 5 years follow-up after everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 10, 786–795 (2017).
91. Serruys, P. W. et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet 373, 897–910 (2009).
92. Gomez-Lara, J. et al. Long-term coronary functional assessment of the infarct-related artery treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds or everolimus-eluting metallic stents: insights of the TROFI II trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11, 1559–1571 (2018).
93. Stone, G. W. et al. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 1663–1674 (2010).
94. Smits, P. C. et al. 2-Year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization in daily practice. COMPARE (comparison of the everolimus eluting XIENCE-V stent with the paclitaxel eluting TAXUS LIBERTE stent in all-comers: a randomized open label trial). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 58, 11–18 (2011).
95. Jinnouchi, H. et al. Five-year clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation following rotational atherectomy for heavily calcified lesions. Circ. J. 82, 983–991 (2018).
96. Levine, G. N. et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 134, e123–e155 (2016).
97. Timmers, L., Stella, P. R. & Agostoni, P. Very late bioresorbable vascular scaffold thrombosis following discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Eur. Heart J. 36, 393 (2015).
98. Karanasos, A., van Geuns, R. J., Zijlstra, F. & Regar, E. Very late bioresorbable scaffold thrombosis after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy. Eur. Heart J. 35, 1781 (2014).
99. Byrne, R. A. et al. Report of an ESC-EAPCI Task Force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary. Eur. Heart J. 39, 1591–1601 (2018).
100. Granada, J. Fortitude, aptitude, and magnitude: progressively thin-strut BRS based on ultra-high molecular weight amorphous PLLA. TCTMD https://www.tctmd.com/slide/fortitude-aptitude-and-magnitude-progressively-thin-strut-brs-based-ultra-high-molecular (2017).
101. Chieffo, A. Advanced technology platforms: APTITUDE 115 μm and MAGNITUDE 98 μm BRS 9-month clinical updates. Presented at EuroPCR, Paris, France (2018).
102. Seth, A. et al. First-in-human evaluation of a novel poly-L-lactide based sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions: MeRes-1 trial. EuroIntervention 13, 415–423 (2017).
103. Chandra, P. MeRes-1: two-year clinical, angiographic, OCT and IVUS results with a thin-strut PLLA-based sirolimus-eluting BRS in patients with coronary artery disease. Presented at EuroPCR, Paris, France (2018).
104. Tenekecioglu, E. et al. Randomized comparison of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold and mirage microfiber sirolimus-eluting scaffold using multimodality imaging. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 10, 1115–1130 (2017).
105. Zhang, Y. J. et al. Clinical and multimodality imaging results at 6 months of a bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold for patients with single de novo coronary artery lesions: the NeoVas first-in-man trial. EuroIntervention 12, 1279–1287 (2016).
106. Han, Y. et al. A randomized trial comparing the NeoVas sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and metallic everolimus-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11, 260–272 (2018).
107. Wu, Y. et al. Six-month outcomes of the XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold in treating single de novo lesions in human coronary artery. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 87 (Suppl. 1), 630–637 (2016).
108. Ge, J. XINSORB: a randomized trial of a bioresorbable scaffold versus a metallic DES in patients with coronary artery disease. TCTMD https://www.tctmd.com/slide/xinsorb-randomized-trial-bioresorbable-scaffold-vs-metallic-des-patients-coronary-artery (2017).
109. Ge, J. The PLLA-based Xinsorb. TCTMD https://www.tctmd.com/slide/plla-based-xinsorb (2017).
110. Xu, B., Guan, C. & Gao, R. A. A first-in-man study of the firesorb sirolimus target eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease (FUTURE-I): one-year clinical and imaging outcomes [abstract]. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 72 (Suppl. B.), B172–B173 (2018).
111. Lin, W. et al. Design and characterization of a novel biocorrodible iron-based frug-eluting coronary scaffold. Mater. Des. 91, 72–79 (2016).
112. Qi, Y. et al. Strategy of metal-polymer composite stent to accelerate biodegradation of iron-based biomaterials. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 10, 182–192 (2018).
113. Jimenez, J. M. & Davies, P. F. Hemodynamically driven stent strut design. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 37, 1483–1494 (2009).
114. Vahl, T. P. et al. Four-year polymer biocompatibility and vascular healing profile of a novel ultrahigh molecular weight amorphous PLLA bioresorbable vascular scaffold: an OCT study in healthy porcine coronary arteries. EuroIntervention 12, 1510–1518 (2016).