Research Correspondence

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00504

Long-term safety and effectiveness of the Fantom bioresorbable coronary artery scaffold: final results of the FANTOM II trial

Matthias Lutz1, MD; Alexandre Abizaid2,3, MD; Emil Nielsen Holck4, MD; Alexandra Lansky5, MD; Didier Carrié6, MD; Joachim Weber-Albers7, MD; Darius Dudek8, MD; Norbert Frey9, MD; Evald Høj Christiansen4, MD; Niels Ramsing Holm4, MD; Gregg W Stone10, MD

To overcome the long-term limitations of metallic drug-eluting stents (DES), fully bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to restore late vasomotion and adaptive remodelling capability, and reduce the risk of late inflammation, late strut fracture and neoatherosclerosis formation, all of which contribute to restenosis and revascularisation failure. The first-generation bioresorbable scaffolds were launched in Europe in 2012; these were characterised by thick struts (>150 μm) and were derived from a poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) material. Clinical data from the first-generation PLLA BRS demonstrated their potential for favourable long-term outcomes after their complete bioresorption (~3 years). Before 3 years, however, first-generation BRS were shown to be less safe and effective than DES1.

The Fantom BRS (REVA Medical) was developed to address the limitations of the first-generation BRS. The Fantom BRS is manufactured from Tyrocore (REVA Medical), a unique desaminotyrosine-based polymer, which improves both material strength and elasticity while allowing for a reduced strut thickness of the scaffold. The first-generation Fantom BRS used in this study had a uniform strut thickness of 125 μm. The Fantom scaffold has an estimated surface-to-artery ratio of...

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 7
Apr 1, 2024
Volume 20 Number 7
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/EIJV16I2A16 Jun 12, 2020
Bioresorbable scaffolds: did we jump the gun?
Waksman R and Forrestal B
free

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

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00044 Sep 16, 2024
Serial intracoronary imaging to predict efficacy and safety of magnesium-based resorbable scaffolds
Räber L and Kakizaki R
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/EIJV13I5A82 Aug 4, 2017
Long-term data of BRS presented at EuroPCR 2017 (Friday, 19 May)
Serruys PW et al
free

EXPERT REVIEW

10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00499 Aug 25, 2017
State of the art: the inception, advent and future of fully bioresorbable scaffolds
Katagiri Y et al
free

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