ArticleAsiaIntervention2023
Safety and efficacy of a novel 3D-printed bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold in a porcine model.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances in 3D-Printed Bioresorbable Vascular Stents: Toward Patient-Specific, Novel-Structured, Functional, and Smart Devices.ACS omega · 2026Review
- Bioresorbable scaffolds advances, challenges, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- A novel paclitaxel eluting bioresorbable vascular stent with a super flexible stent structure and round cross section struts fabricated using 3D printing technology with a rotating platform.Regenerative biomaterials · 2025Article
- New opportunities for bioresorbable scaffold technology.AsiaIntervention · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The effect of 3D-printed bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) in coronary heart disease has not been clarified. Aims: We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of 3D-printed BRS with that of metallic sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). Methods: Thirty-two BRS and 32 SES were implanted into 64 porcine coronary arteries. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed at 14, 28, 97, and 189 days post-implantation. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and histopathological analyses were performed at each assessment. Results: All stents/scaffolds were successfully implanted. All animals survived for the duration of the study. QCA showed the two devices had a similar stent/scaffold-to-artery ratio and acute percent recoil. OCT showed the lumen area (LA) and scaffold/stent area (SA) of the BRS were significantly smaller than those of the SES at 14 and 28 days post-implantation (14-day LA: BRS vs SES 4.52±0.41 mm Conclusions: The novel 3D-printed BRS showed safety and efficacy similar to that of SES in a porcine model. The BRS also showed a long-term positive remodelling effect.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.