Editorial

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00044

Serial intracoronary imaging to predict efficacy and safety of magnesium-based resorbable scaffolds

Lorenz Räber1, MD, PhD; Ryota Kakizaki, MD, PhD

So far, bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) technology has failed in achieving non-inferiority compared to metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). While the polymeric Absorb (Abbott) bioresorbable vascular scaffold was rigorously tested against metallic DES and showed inferior efficacy and safety, any other BRS technology has undergone no or very limited assessment in powered randomised trials, including the previous two generations of resorbable magnesium scaffold (RMS). In the only randomised controlled trial (RCT), the small MAGSTEMI trial, the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable magnesium scaffold (DREAMS 2G, commercial name Magmaris [Biotronik]) showed a lower clinical and angiographic efficacy as compared to DES, yet a better vasomotor function at follow-up1. This trial and the results of the BIOSOLVE observational studies reportedly identified stent recoil due to limited radial strength as the leading reason for inferior efficacy. The latest iteration, the third-generation DREAMS (DREAMS 3G, commercial name Freesolve [Biotronik]), was developed to address this limitation. Compared to Magmaris, DREAMS 3G improved radial strength despite reduced strut thickness. In the first-in-human study (BIOMAG-I) assessing the DREAMS 3G, target lesion revascularisation at 12 months rarely occurred (2.6%) and no...

Sign in to read
the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Volume 20 Number 18
Sep 16, 2024
Volume 20 Number 18
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

Debate

10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00015 Jun 19, 2023
Bioresorbable coronary scaffolds are ready for a comeback: pros and cons
Stone GW et al
free

10.4244/EIJV15I1A5 May 20, 2019
Should we stop using bioresorbable scaffolds in coronary revascularisation?
Mangieri A and Colombo A
free

10.4244/EIJV16I2A16 Jun 12, 2020
Bioresorbable scaffolds: did we jump the gun?
Waksman R and Forrestal B
free

10.4244/EIJV13I13A242 Jan 19, 2018
Polymeric bioresorbable coronary scaffolds: the hype is over, but the dream lives on
Pyxaras S and Wijns W
free

10.4244/EIJV15I16A254 Mar 20, 2020
Bioresorbable scaffolds and STEMI: an ideal setting, but still vacant
Spaulding C
free
Trending articles
152.9

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01125 Oct 20, 2021
An upfront combined strategy for endovascular haemostasis in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Costa G et al
free
47.8

NEW INNOVATION

10.4244/EIJ-D-15-00467 Feb 20, 2018
Design and principle of operation of the HeartMate PHP (percutaneous heart pump)
Van Mieghem NM et al
free
39.1

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00558 Feb 6, 2023
Permanent pacemaker implantation and left bundle branch block with self-expanding valves – a SCOPE 2 subanalysis
Pellegrini C et al
free
33.15

Translational research

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00308 Nov 17, 2023
Redo-TAVI with SAPIEN 3 in SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 – impact of pre- and post-dilatation on final THV expansion
Meier D et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved