ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Bioresorbable scaffolds advances, challenges, and future directions.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. 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.
- Hematologic complications and design challenges in cardiovascular devices.Communications engineering · 2026Review
- Topology-Driven Mechanical Tuning of FDM-Printed TPU Tubular Lattices with Auxetic Architectures.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Advances in Functional Vascular Stents for Cardiovascular Therapy with Drug Delivery and Computational Design.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- In-Stent Restenosis Pathophysiology and Risk Factors: A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past few decades, researchers have attempted to overcome the disadvantages of metallic stents. This led to the birth of the first "Bioresorbable Scaffold" (BRS) model, the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (BVS), in 1999 by Abbott. A stent that spontaneously resorbs shows a promising theoretical minimal risk of long-term stent thrombosis and omits the need for long-term antiplatelet therapy. However, only one year after its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2016, it was voluntarily withdrawn owing to concerns regarding its safety because of the higher risk of target lesion failure. Although long-term follow-up data from the ABSORB IV trial were released in 2023 and showed a comparable long-term safety profile for BRS compared to conventional metallic stents, with only a slightly higher target lesion failure in the first three years, concerns remain regarding their use. Therefore, in this study, we discuss the different adverse events associated with different BRS models. We also discuss various approaches to optimizing the use of BRS, new BRS manufacturing techniques (e.g., 3D printing), and novel BRS models yet to be approved (e.g., DREAM 3G magnesium-based BRS). We suggest carefully selecting patients who could obtain the maximum benefit from BRS through the discussed selection criteria, which could reduce the risk of target lesion failure and BRS complications. Using newer technologies, such as 3D printing, also has excellent potential for making BRS more cost- and market-friendly, owing to their fast output and ability to form individually curated scaffolds.
Indexed as
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.