Future of Bioresorbable Scaffolds Is Now in Doubt

The 3-year follow-up in ABSORB II failed to show any benefit for bioresorbable scaffolds and indicated potential risk.

Using fully bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) in treating coronary artery disease might theoretically solve the problems of metallic stents — limited later surgery at the stent site and adverse effects on vasomotor tone in the distal vessel. However, previous studies suggested a signal with BRS to more adverse events, including vessel thrombosis, compared with contemporary drug-eluting metallic stents. Now, researchers report the 3-year follow-up of the ABSORB II study involving 501 patients randomized in a 2:1 ratio to an everolimus-eluting BRS or an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES).

Regarding vasomotor reactivity, analyzed in 388 paired lesions, the treatment groups did not differ in mean lumen diameter after intracoronary nitrate admi…

Reviewing Author

Howard C. Herrmann, MD

Disclosures

Consultant/Advisory BoardAffluent Medical; Artedrone; Caranx; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic; Prolifagen; Wells Fargo

EquityMicrointerventional Devices, Inc.

RoyaltiesUniversity of Pennsylvania

Grant/Research SupportAbbott Vascular; Edwards Lifesciences; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic

Editorial BoardsCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions; Journal of the American College of Cardiology; Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions; JACC Cardiovascular Interventions; JACC Case Reports; JSCAI

Leadership Positions in Professional SocietiesHeart Valve Collaboratory (Scientific Committee Member, Chair of the Publications Committee)