IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00323

Delayed fracture of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold implanted for in-stent restenosis

Teresa Bastante, MD; Javier Cuesta, MD; Fernando Rivero, MD; Marcos García-Guimaraes, MD; Amparo Benedicto, MD; Fernando Alfonso*, MD, PhD

A 61-year-old woman presented with effort angina one year after the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the mid right coronary artery (RCA). Coronary angiography revealed a proximal “edge” in-stent restenosis (Panel A, arrow; yellow broken line: DES) that was successfully treated with a 3×8 mm bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Absorb™; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) at 20 bar (Panel B, red broken line: BVS). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) confirmed an excellent expansion and apposition of the BVS (Panel C-Panel E, yellow broken line: DES; red broken line: BVS). One month later she was admitted for an inferior acute myocardial infarction. Urgent coronary angiography showed a good result of the BVS but complete occlusion of the most distal RCA that was treated with a new DES. On OCT, the BVS was covered by incipient bright neointima. However, a localised malapposition of some BVS struts was readily identified leading to the diagnosis of late scaffold fracture (Panel F-Panel H, arrows). No further intervention was made. At eight-month follow-up, the BVS maintained an excellent angiographic result and OCT revealed complete neointimal coverage of the fractured BVS (Panel I, Panel J, arrows) (*denotes wire artefact).

Stent fracture is a rare complication described in metallic stents and, more recently, also in BVS. Stent fracture is associated with major complications including restenosis, aneurysm/pseudoaneurysm formation and thrombosis. Risk factors include high implantation pressures and hinge point location. Our BVS was implanted at high pressures but not at a hinge point. The fracture was detected well before the time required for resorption-induced structural BVS disintegrity. Iatrogenic mechanical disruption can never be completely discarded but no clues were identified in this regard. Notably, the BVS rupture was located precisely at the edge of the previous DES. The potential interaction of the rigid underlying DES platform with the flexible overlapping BVS structure should be investigated. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first description of a delayed fracture in a BVS implanted for in-stent restenosis.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Volume 12 Number 13
Jan 20, 2017
Volume 12 Number 13
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

Image – Interventional flashlight

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00063 Jan 20, 2021
Late structural discontinuity after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with in-stent restenosis
Cuesta J et al
free

IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

10.4244/EIJV11I1A14 May 19, 2015
Very late bioresorbable vascular scaffold thrombosis: a new clinical entity
Azzalini L 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

IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

10.4244/EIJV12I1A10 May 16, 2016
Coronary aneurysm without malapposition after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation
Timmers L et al
free

EXPERT REVIEW

10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00471 Feb 20, 2017
Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging
Sotomi Y et al
free

IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00259 Mar 20, 2017
Neoatherosclerosis: an emerging and conceptually unexpected cause of very late bioresorbable vascular scaffold failure
Hiltrop N et al
free
Trending articles
334.7

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00904 Apr 1, 2022
Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention
Angiolillo D et al
free
84.05

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00840 Sep 2, 2024
Aortic regurgitation: from mechanisms to management
Baumbach A et al
free
45.75

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-01346 May 4, 2026
Slow flow and no reflow after percutaneous coronary intervention
Brugaletta S et al
free
42.15

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00896 Apr 6, 2026
Pretreatment with antiplatelet agents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation
Kaur G et al
free
38.2

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00195 Apr 7, 2025
Percutaneous coronary intervention for calcified and resistant lesions
Pesarini G et al
free
33.5

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-26-00032 May 15, 2026
Glucocorticoids to reduce permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI: the GLUCO-TAVI randomised trial
Fuertes-Kenneally L et al
32.2

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00874 Jun 1, 2026
TAVI and coronary interventions: indications, technical considerations, and clinical scenarios
Aquino Bruno H et al
free
29.2

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-01370 May 21, 2026
Prognostic value of early haemodynamic valve deterioration after TAVI
Trimaille A et al
29.2

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-01370 Jun 1, 2026
Prognostic value of early haemodynamic valve deterioration after TAVI
Trimaille A et al
X

PCR
Impact factor: 9.2
2025 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2026)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2026 Europa Group - All rights reserved