ReviewCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025
Current situation and overview of resorbable magnesium scaffolds: a perspective for overcoming the remaining issues of polymeric bioresorbable scaffold.
Review in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standard and Non-standard Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Ischemic Heart Disease and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Clinical Review.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Acute Cardiovascular Care.Circulation reports · 2025Review
- Antithrombotic Management in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Clinical Review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Review
- Deep dive into intravascular coronary imaging in calcified lesions.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Review
- The synergistic mechanism of multimodal psychological intervention in neurological rehabilitation and motor function recovery: from evidence-based practice to digital transformation.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed as an innovative solution to overcome the limitations of metallic stents. While polymeric BRS initially demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to drug-eluting stent (DES) in clinical trials, subsequent large-scale studies revealed that patients implanted with polymeric BRS experienced higher rates of scaffold thrombosis (ScT) and target lesion failure compared to those with metallic stents. Resorbable magnesium scaffolds (RMS) have emerged as a promising alternative owing to magnesium's natural degradability and favorable mechanical properties. Learning from the mechanism of polymeric BRS failure and through continuous improvements, recent clinical trials have shown promising clinical performance for RMS technology. However, comparative studies between RMS and DES have continued to highlight the remaining challenges with RMS, particularly in regard to late lumen loss. Recent advancements in third-generation RMS show improvements in strut thickness and homogeneous degradation, which enhances sustained structural integrity throughout the degradation process. Based on encouraging results from a first-in-human trial of the latest version of RMS, a randomized controlled trial has been initiated to compare the outcomes between metallic stents and the latest RMS, with patient enrollment already underway. This review aims to explore the limitations of polymeric BRS and provide an overview of the current developments and future potential of magnesium-based BRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39707057What 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.