IMR Press / RCM / Volume 22 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm.2021.01.225
Open Access Review
Update on coronary artery bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary revascularization
Show Less
1 Department of Cardiology, Lebanese American University - Rizk Hospital, 1100 Beirut, Lebanon
2 Department of Cardiology, Texas Heart Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA
3 Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 22(1), 137–145;
Submitted: 25 October 2020 | Revised: 21 March 2021 | Accepted: 23 March 2021 | Published: 30 March 2021

Coronary angioplasty was first introduced in 1977. From plain old balloon angioplasty to the introduction of bare metal stents in 1986 and dual antiplatelet therapy in 1992 to much more later on. Due to the unacceptable rate of stent restenosis, drug eluting stents (DES) were introduced in 2000. The first generation showed an increase in late stent thrombosis which led to the introduction of the second generation DES with biocompatible or biodegradable polymers and thinner platforms. However very late stent thrombosis and late restenosis might still pose problems in the latter. Furthermore, there has been major debate regarding the impact of long-term vessel caging on normal vasomotricity and long-term positive remodeling. To resolve these issues, the bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) were launched into the real world in 2011, showing promising initial results. Multiple randomized trials, meta-analyses, and registries were performed, mainly with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System (Abbott Vascular, Chicago, IL, USA). This new technology is hindered by certain features, such as the BVS radial strength, its strut thickness, and the inflammatory process related to scaffold degradation. Moreover, there is known data indicating higher thrombosis rate with the Absorb BVS compared with the new generation of DES, despite similar cardiovascular death. In this review, we discuss the clinical procedural and technical evidence on BVS, with emphasis on their clinical impact. We finally tackle the future directions on device and procedural improvement while asking: is the bioresorbable technology still the way to the future?

Percutaneous interventions
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds
Back to top