Should we stop using bioresorbable scaffolds in coronary revascularisation?

EuroIntervention 2019;15:28-30. DOI: 10.4244/EIJV15I1A5

Antonio Mangieri
Antonio Mangieri1, MD; Antonio Colombo1, MD
1. Interventional Cardiology Unit, GVM Care & Research, Maria Cecilia Hospital, Cotignola, Italy
After the first positive results for the treatment of coronary lesions using bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), the Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI (AIDA) trial and the three-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB III trial have demonstrated an increased risk of scaffold thrombosis using the Absorb™ BRS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) compared with the conventional everolimus drug-eluting stent in contemporary cohorts of patients1,2. When implanting current Absorb BRS important considerations need to be kept in mind. The device is, by structure design and performance, more thrombogenic than current second-generation drug-eluting stents. The only way to make ...

Sign in to read and download 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

Read next article
Interventional cardiology’s golden age of contributions to evidence-based medicine

Latest news