We sincerely appreciate the interest of Piraino et al in our paper1 describing the occurrence of subacute bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) thrombosis in a very old patient with recurrent in-stent restenosis (R-ISR) in a heavily calcified vessel. We fully agree with their concerns regarding the importance of final result optimisation in patients with “recalcitrant” in-stent restenosis (ISR)2,3. In this setting, characterised by the classic “metallic onion skin” underlying substrate, tackling any residual resistant underexpansion is of paramount importance2,3. Likewise, the strategy of “leave nothing behind” is especially appealing in this challenging patient subset with multiple metal layers. Certainly, drug-coated balloons and BVS could be of particular value in these patients. Furthermore, we also concur with the notion that special care should be taken to optimise BVS results in challenging anatomic scenarios. However, in spite of all our optimisation efforts the final result after BVS in our patient was suboptimal, as readily demonstrated by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Therefore, this factor was probably implicated in the pathogenesis of the subacute BVS thrombosis. Interestingly, at the time of reintervention, OCT also unraveled the occurrence of significant “recoil” of the BVS which probably also played a major coadjuvant pathophysiological role in our patient. Fortunately, after the described intervention, our patient remains completely asymptomatic (current follow-up of 28 months). In a subsequent preliminary series of patients with ISR systematically treated with BVS, we demonstrated the value of OCT to guide the procedure and optimise final results4.

Finally, the Spanish RIBS VI prospective study included 135 patients with ISR treated with BVS. The study is currently ongoing but no patient has suffered from definitive acute BVS thrombosis. Final results of this study will help to elucidate the safety and effectiveness of BVS in patients suffering from ISR. However, only well-designed head-to-head randomised studies will be able to establish definitively the relative safety and efficacy of currently available therapeutic strategies in these patients.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Volume 11 Number 12
Mar 18, 2016
Volume 11 Number 12
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

10.4244/EIJV11I12A279 Mar 18, 2016
Recurrent in-stent restenosis: many treatment options, no certainty
Piraino D et al
free

IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

10.4244/EIJY14M10_07 Nov 20, 2015
Subacute thrombosis of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold implanted for recurrent in-stent restenosis
Rivero F et al
free

10.4244/EIJV16I8A116 Oct 23, 2020
BVS déjà vu: the storm before the calm
Kereiakes D
free
Trending articles
317.8

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00695 Nov 19, 2021
Transcatheter treatment for tricuspid valve disease
Praz F et al
free
116.85

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00066 Apr 21, 2025
Management of complications after valvular interventions
Bansal A et al
free
108.3

Viewpoint

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00007 May 15, 2022
TAVI at 20: how a crazy idea led to a clinical revolution
Eltchaninoff H et al
free
91.6

Image – Interventional flashlight

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00344 Aug 5, 2022
First dedicated transcatheter leaflet splitting device: the ShortCut device
Tchétché D et al
free
68.9

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00992 Sep 15, 2025
Antithrombotic therapy in complex percutaneous coronary intervention
Castiello D et al
free
42.95

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00145 Sep 20, 2021
Robotics, imaging, and artificial intelligence in the catheterisation laboratory
Beyar R et al
free
X

PCR
Impact factor: 9.5
2024 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2025)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved