Long-term outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

REFERENCES

• Schatz RA, Baim DS, Leon M, et al. Clinical experience with the Palmaz-Schatz coronary stent. Initial results of a multicenter study. Circulation. 1991;83(1):148–161. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.83.1.148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz RS, Edelman ER, Carter A, et al. Drug-eluting stents in preclinical studies: recommended evaluation from a consensus group. Circulation. 2002;106(14):1867–1873. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000033485.20594.6F
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dangas GD, Claessen BE, Caixeta A, et al. In-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting stent era. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(23):1897–1907. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.07.028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmerini T, Benedetto U, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Long-term safety of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(23):2496–2507. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Chen X, Sun W, et al. Very late stent thrombosis in drug-eluting stents new observations and clinical implications. Cardiol Rev. 2019;27(6):279–285. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jinnouchi H, Torii S, Sakamoto A, et al. Fully bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: lessons learned and future directions. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2019;16(5):286–304. doi:10.1038/s41569-018-0124-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishio S, Kosuga K, Igaki K et al. Long-Term (>10 Years) clinical outcomes of first-in-human biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents: Igaki-Tamai stents. Circulation, 125(19), 2343–2353 (2012 ). * Long-term outcome of Igaki-Tamai scaffold at >10 years.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9616):899–907. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60415-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ninomiya. K, Garg. S, Abizaid. A et al. The PCR-EAPCI Textbook - Percutaneous interventional cardiovascular medicine. In: Bioresorbable scaffolds. Textbook, TP-E, Europa Group: Toulouse, France. Online book; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Sakamoto A, Jinnouchi H, Torii S, Virmani R, Finn AV. Understanding the Impact of Stent and Scaffold Material and Strut Design on Coronary Artery Thrombosis from the Basic and Clinical Points of View. Bioengineering (Basel). 2018;5(3):71. doi:10.3390/bioengineering5030071
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Onuma Y, Grundeken MJ, Nakatani S et al. Serial 5-Year Evaluation of Side Branches Jailed by Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Using 3-Dimensional Optical Coherence Tomography: Insights From the ABSORB Cohort B Trial (A Clinical Evaluation of the Bioabsorbable Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 10(9), e004393 (2017).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spuentrup E, Ruebben A, Mahnken A, et al. Artifact-free coronary magnetic resonance angiography and coronary vessel wall imaging in the presence of a new, metallic, coronary magnetic resonance imaging stent. Circulation. 2005;111(8):1019–1026. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000156462.97532.8F
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormiston JA, Serruys PW. Bioabsorbable coronary stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2(3), 255–260 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazif TM, Kalra S, Ali ZA, et al.. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Bioresorbable Scaffolds in a Young Child. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(4):430–434. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.4954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Onuma Y, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet. 2009;373(9667):897–910. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60325-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Dudek D, Thuesen L, et al. Five-year clinical and functional multislice computed tomography angiographic results after coronary implantation of the fully resorbable polymeric everolimus-eluting scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB cohort a trial. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(10):999–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.05.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Sotomi Y, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10059):2479–2491. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32050-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Chevalier B, Ono M, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: five-year clinical outcomes of the randomised ABSORB II trial. EuroIntervention. 2020;16(11):e938–e941. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Popma JJ et al. Evaluation of a fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: design of and rationale for the ABSORB III randomized trial. Am Heart J, 170(4), 641–651 e643 (2015).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Metzger DC, et al. Clinical outcomes before and after complete everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold resorption: five-year follow-up from the ABSORB III trial. Circulation. 2019;140(23):1895–1903. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042584
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura T, Kozuma K, Tanabe K, et al. A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(47):3332–3342. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Sotomi Y, Shiomi H, et al. Two-year clinical, angiographic, and serial optical coherence tomographic follow-up after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent: insights from the randomised ABSORB Japan trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(9):1090–1101. doi: 10.4244/EIJY16M09_01
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Honda Y, Asano T, et al. Randomized comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and metallic stent: multimodality imaging through 3 years. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(1):116–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.09.047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozuma K, Tanabe K, Hamazaki Y et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold vs. Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent　- A Randomized Comparison Through 5 Years in Japan. Circ J, 84(5), 733–741 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao R, Yang Y, Han Y, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB China trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(21):2298–2309. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu B, Yang Y, Han Y, et al. Comparison of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and metallic stents: three-year clinical outcomes from the ABSORB China randomised trial. EuroIntervention. 2018;14(5):e554–e561. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao R. 5-Year Clinical Outcomes From Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease From ABSORB China Trial. In: TCT 2019. Gao, R (San Francisco, CA, 2019)
   Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Ellis SG, Gori T, et al. Blinded outcomes and angina assessment of coronary bioresorbable scaffolds: 30-day and 1-year results from the ABSORB IV randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10157):1530–1540. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32283-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Kimura T, Gao R, et al.. Time-Varying Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold During 5-Year Follow-up: A Systematic Meta-analysis and Individual Patient Data Pooled Study. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(12):1261–1269. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Kereiakes DJ, Gori T, et al. 5-year outcomes after bioresorbable coronary scaffolds implanted with improved technique. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;82(3):183–195. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woudstra P, Grundeken MJ, Kraak RP et al. Amsterdam Investigator-initiateD Absorb strategy all-comers trial (AIDA trial): a clinical evaluation comparing the efficacy and performance of ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold strategy vs the XIENCE family (XIENCE PRIME or XIENCE Xpedition) everolimus-eluting coronary stent strategy in the treatment of coronary lesions in consecutive all-comers: rationale and study design. Am Heart J, 167(2), 133–140 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tijssen RYG, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, et al. Complete two-year follow-up with formal non-inferiority testing on primary outcomes of the AIDA trial comparing the absorb bioresorbable scaffold with the XIENCE drug-eluting metallic stent in routine PCI. EuroIntervention. 2018;14(4):e426–e433. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerkmeijer LSM, Tijssen RYG, Hofma SH, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in routine PCI: three-year clinical outcomes from the AIDA trial. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(7):603–606. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00325
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerkmeijer LSM, Renkens MPL, Tijssen RYG, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: final five-year results of the AIDA randomised clinical trial. EuroIntervention. 2022;17(16):1340–1347. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits PC, Chang CC, Chevalier B, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus metallic drug-eluting stent in patients at high risk of restenosis: the COMPARE-ABSORB randomised clinical trial. EuroIntervention. 2020;16(8):645–653. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-01079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Maehara A, Ali ZA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for vulnerable coronary atherosclerotic plaque. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(20):2289–2301. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.547
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arroyo D, Togni M, Puricel S et al. Comparison of everolimus-eluting and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold: study protocol of the randomized controlled EVERBIO II trial. Trials, 15, 9 (2014).
   Google Scholar
• Puricel S, Arroyo D, Corpataux N, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(8):791–801. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arroyo D, Gendre G, Schukraft S, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: two-year clinical outcomes of the EVERBIO II trial. Int J Cardiol. 2017;243:121–125. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.05.053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schukraft S, Arroyo D, Togni M, et al. Five-year angiographic, OCT and clinical outcomes of a randomized comparison of everolimus and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99(3):523–532. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali ZA, Serruys PW, Kimura T, et al. 2-year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy. Lancet. 2017;390(10096):760–772. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31470-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elias J, van Dongen IM, Kraak RP, et al. Mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic everolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: a weighted meta-analysis of seven randomised controlled trials including 5577 patients. Neth Heart J. 2017;25(7–8):429–438. doi: 10.1007/s12471-017-1008-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang XL, Zhu QQ, Kang LN, et al. Mid- and Long-term outcome comparisons of Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus Everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(9):642–654. doi:10.7326/M17-1101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brugaletta S, Heo JH, Garcia-Garcia HM et al. Endothelial-dependent vasomotion in a coronary segment treated by ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold system is related to plaque composition at the time of bioresorption of the polymer: indirect finding of vascular reparative therapy? Eur Heart J, 33(11), 1325–1333 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudek D, Rzeszutko Ł, Onuma Y, et al. Vasomotor response to nitroglycerine over 5 years follow-up after Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(8):786–795. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.12.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscarella E, Tanaka A, Ielasi A, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: 1-year follow-up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE-ISR study). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92(4):668–677. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katagiri Y, Serruys PW, Asano T, et al. How does the failure of absorb apply to the other bioresorbable scaffolds? An expert review of first-in-man and pivotal trials. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(1):116–123. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00607
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katagiri Y, Onuma Y, Asano T, et al. Relation between bioresorbable scaffold sizing using QCA-Dmax and long-term clinical outcomes in 1,232 patients from three study cohorts (ABSORB cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II). EuroIntervention. 2018;14(9):e1057–e1066. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega-Paz L, Capodanno D, Gori T, et al. Predilation, sizing and post-dilation scoring in patients undergoing everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation for prediction of cardiac adverse events: development and internal validation of the PSP score. EuroIntervention. 2017;12(17):2110–2117. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00974
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Ormiston JA, et al. Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus drug-eluting vascular scaffold for treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: six-month clinical and imaging outcomes. Circulation. 2010;122(22):2301–2312. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.970772
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaji K, Ueki Y, Souteyrand G, et al. Mechanisms of very late bioresorbable scaffold thrombosis: the INVEST registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(19):2330–2344. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campos CM, Muramatsu T, Iqbal J, et al. Bioresorbable drug-eluting magnesium-alloy scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(12):24492–24500. doi: 10.3390/ijms141224492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waksman R, Lipinski MJ, Acampado E, et al. Comparison of acute thrombogenicity for metallic and polymeric bioabsorbable scaffolds: magmaris versus absorb in a porcine arteriovenous shunt Model. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(8):e004762. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004762
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Dou J, Yu H, et al. Degradable magnesium-based alloys for biomedical applications: the role of critical alloying elements. J Biomater Appl. 2019;33(10):1348–1372. doi:10.1177/0885328219834656
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker WL. Treating arrhythmias with adjunctive magnesium: identifying future research directions. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother, 3(2), 108–117 (2017).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haude M, Ince H, Toelg R, et al. Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold (DREAMS 2G) in patients with de novo coronary lesions: three-year clinical results and angiographic findings of the BIOSOLVE-II first-in-man trial. EuroIntervention. 2020;15(15):e1375–e1382. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haude M, Ince H, Kische S et al. Sustained safety and clinical performance of a drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold up to 24 months: pooled outcomes of BIOSOLVE-II and BIOSOLVE-III. EuroIntervention, 13(4), 432–439 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheye S, Wlodarczak A, Montorsi P, et al. BIOSOLVE-IV-registry: safety and performance of the magmaris scaffold: 12-month outcomes of the first cohort of 1,075 patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98(1):E1–E8. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheye S, Wlodarczak A, Montorsi P, et al. Twelve-month outcomes of 400 patients treated with a resorbable metal scaffold: insights from the BIOSOLVE-IV registry. EuroIntervention. 2020;15(15):e1383–e1386. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlodarczak A, Montorsi P, Torzewski J, et al. One- and two-year clinical outcomes of treatment with resorbable magnesium scaffolds for coronary artery disease: the prospective, international, multicentre BIOSOLVE-IV registry. EuroIntervention. 2023;19(3):232–239. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-01069
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Lara J, Ortega-Paz L, Brugaletta S, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus permanent sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: vascular healing outcomes from the MAGSTEMI trial. EuroIntervention. 2020;16(11):e913–e921. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega-Paz L, Brugaletta S, Gomez-Lara J, et al. Magnesium-based resorbable scaffold vs permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 3-year results of the MAGSTEMI randomised controlled trial. EuroIntervention. 2022;18(5):e389–e396. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hideo-Kajita A, Garcia-Garcia HM, Kolm P et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between Magmaris and Orsiro drug eluting stent at 12 months: Pooled patient level analysis from BIOSOLVE II-III and BIOFLOW II trials. Int J Cardiol, 300, 60–65 (2020).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rola P, Wlodarczak A, Wlodarczak S et al. Magnesium Bioresorbable Scaffold (BRS) Magmaris vs Biodegradable Polymer DES Ultimaster in NSTE-ACS Population-12-Month Clinical Outcome. J Interv Cardiol, 2022, 5223317 (2022).
   Google Scholar
• Rola P, Wlodarczak A, Lanocha M, et al. Outcomes of the two generations of bioresorbable scaffolds (magmaris vs. Absorb) in acute coronary syndrome in routine clinical practice. Cardiol J. 2022;30(6):870–880. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2022.0047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boeder NF, Dorr O, Koepp T, et al. Acute mechanical performance of Magmaris vs. DESolve bioresorbable scaffolds in a real-world scenario. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:696287. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.696287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rola P, Wlodarczak S, Doroszko A, Lesiak M, Wlodarczak A. The bioresorbable magnesium scaffold (Magmaris)-State of the art: From basic concept to clinical application. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 100(6), 1051–1058 (2022).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossard M, Madanchi M, Avdijaj D et al. Long-Term Outcomes After Implantation of Magnesium-Based Bioresorbable Scaffolds-Insights From an All-Comer Registry. Front Cardiovasc Med, 9, 856930 (2022).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Nooryani A, Aboushokka W, AlBaba B et al. Long-Term Performance of the Magmaris Drug-Eluting Bioresorbable Metallic Scaffold in All-Comers Patients’ Population. J Clin Med, 11(13), 3726 (2022).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlodarczak A, Lanocha M, Lesiak M, et al. Long-term clinical follow-up of the resorbable magnesium scaffolds in acute coronary syndrome patients. Kardiol Pol. 2021;79(7–8):827–832. doi: 10.33963/KP.a2021.0035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutierrez-Barrios A, Gheorghe LL, Camacho Freire S, et al. Long-term clinical, angiographic, and optical coherence tomography findings of Mg-based bioresorbable scaffold in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98(1):E69–E77. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haude M, Wlodarczak A, van der Schaaf RJ et al. Safety and performance of the third-generation drug-eluting resorbable coronary magnesium scaffold system in the treatment of subjects with de novo coronary artery lesions: 6-month results of the prospective, multicenter BIOMAG-I first-in-human study. EClinicalMedicine, 59, 101940 (2023).
   Google Scholar
• Haude M, Wlodarczak A, van der Schaaf RJ et al. A new resorbable magnesium scaffold for de novo coronary lesions (DREAMS 3): one-year results of the BIOMAG-I first-in-human study. EuroIntervention, 19(5), e414–e422 (2023).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y. O. Japan medical device technology - surface modification does improve late recoil of new magnesium alloy-based bioresorbable stent. In: EuroPCR. 2018. (Paris, France, 2018)
   Google Scholar
• Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Collet C, et al. Bioresorbable scaffold: the emerging reality and future directions. Circ Res. 2017;120(8):1341–1352. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.310275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormiston JA, Webber B, Ubod B, Darremont O, Webster MW. An independent bench comparison of two bioresorbable drug-eluting coronary scaffolds (Absorb and DESolve) with a durable metallic drug-eluting stent (ML8/Xpedition). EuroIntervention, 11(1), 60–67 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheye S, Ormiston JA, Stewart J, et al. A next-generation bioresorbable coronary scaffold system: from bench to first clinical evaluation: 6- and 12-month clinical and multimodality imaging results. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(1):89–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.07.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier BR. Desolve Nx, Cx, and Amity: A Family of Progressively Thinner-Strut PLLA-Based BRS With Novel Properties. In: TCT 2017. (Denver, CO, 2017)
   Google Scholar
• Boeder NF, Dorr O, Bauer T, et al. Impact of strut thickness on acute mechanical performance: a comparison study using optical coherence tomography between DESolve 150 and DESolve 100. Int J Cardiol. 2017;246:74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.05.087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blachutzik F, Boeder N, Wiebe J, et al. Post-dilatation after implantation of bioresorbable everolimus- and novolimus-eluting scaffolds: an observational optical coherence tomography study of acute mechanical effects. Clin Res Cardiol. 2017;106(4):271–279. doi: 10.1007/s00392-016-1048-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen JH, Wu YZ, Shen L, et al. First-in-man implantation of the XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015;128(9):1275–1276. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.156155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Zhao J, Yang G, et al. Mechanical properties and degradation of drug eluted bioresorbable vascular scaffolds prepared by three-dimensional printing technology. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2019;30(7):547–560. doi: 10.1080/09205063.2019.1586303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Shen L, Yin J, et al. Twelve-month angiographic and clinical outcomes of the XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold and a metallic stent in patients with coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol. 2019;293:61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.06.053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Yao Z, Yin J, et al.. Three-year clinical outcomes of a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (XINSORB) and a metallic stent to treat coronary artery stenosis. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(22):1489. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-6739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa JdR, Abizaid A, Chamie D, Lansky A, Kochman J, Koltowski L. Initial Results of the Fantom 1 Trial: A First-in-Man Evaluation of a Novel, Radiopaque Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold. J Am Coll Cardiol, 67(13), 232 (2016).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abizaid A, Carrié D, Frey N, et al. 6-month clinical and angiographic outcomes of a Novel Radiopaque Sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: the FANTOM II study. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(18):1832–1838. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.07.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier B, Abizaid A, Carrié D, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes with a Novel Radiopaque Sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(6):e007283. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito Y, Cristea E, Bouras G, et al. Long-term serial functional evaluation after implantation of the fantom sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97(3):431–436. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz M. FANTOM II Trial: Safety & Performance Study of the Fantom Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold – Final: 5 Year Clinical Outcomes. In: TCT 2022. (Boston, MA, 2022)
   Google Scholar
• Lutz M. Safety & Performance of the Fantom Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold First Report 5 Year Clinical Outcomes. In: TCT 2021. (2021)
   Google Scholar
• Koltowski L, Tomaniak M, Ochijewicz D et al. Second generation, sirolimus-eluting, bioresorbable Tyrocore scaffold implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Baseline OCT and 30-day clinical outcomes - A FANTOM STEMI pilot study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 96(1), E1–e7 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdous MM, Jie Z, Gao L, et al. A first-in-human study of the bioheart sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: two-year clinical and imaging outcomes. Adv Ther. 2022;39(8):3749–3765. doi: 10.1007/s12325-022-02154-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seth A, Onuma Y, Costa R, et al. First-in-human evaluation of a novel poly-L-lactide based sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions: MeRes-1 trial. EuroIntervention. 2017;13(4):415–423. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seth A, Onuma Y, Chandra P, et al. Three-year clinical and two-year multimodality imaging outcomes of a thin-strut sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: MeRes-1 trial. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(7):607–614. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00324
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang YJ, Wang XZ, Fu G, et al. Clinical and multimodality imaging results at 6 months of a bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold for patients with single de novo coronary artery lesions: the NeoVas first-in-man trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(10):1279–1287. doi: 10.4244/EIJV12I10A209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han Y, Xu B, Fu G, et al. A randomized trial comparing the NeoVas sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-eluting stents. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(3):260–272. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.09.037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu K, Fu G, Xu B, et al. Safety and efficacy of the novel sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease: one-year results from a prospective patient-level pooled analysis of NeoVas trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(S1):832–838. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Li Y, Fu G, et al. Three-year clinical outcomes of the novel sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease: a prospective patient-level pooled analysis of NeoVas trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;101(6):967–972. doi: 10.1002/ccd.30518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne RA, Stefanini GG, Capodanno D, et al. Report of an ESC-EAPCI task force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(18):1591–1601. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx488
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao R-L, Xu B, Sun Z et al. First-in-human evaluation of a novel ultrathin sirolimus-eluting iron bioresorbable scaffold: 3-year outcomes of the IBS-FIM trial. EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, EIJ-D-22-00919 (2023).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song L, Sun Z, Guan C et al. First-in-man study of a thinner-strut sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (FUTURE-I): Three-year clinical and imaging outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 95 Suppl 1, 648–657 (2020).
   Google Scholar
• Song L, Xu B, Chen Y, et al. Thinner strut sirolimus-eluting BRS versus EES in patients with coronary artery disease: FUTURE-II trial. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(13):1450–1462. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.04.048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Presented EG. From Fortitude 150 to Aptitude 115: Clinical update. In: EuroPCR 2017. (Paris, France., 2017)
   Google Scholar
• Colombo A. FORTITUDE: Nine-Month Clinical, Angiographic, and OCT Results With an Amorphous PLLA-Based Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. In: TCT 2016. (Washington, DC, 2016)
   Google Scholar
• FG. J. Fortitude, Aptitude, and Magnitude: Progressively Thin-Strut BRS Based on Ultra-High MW Amorphous PLLA. In: TCT 2017. (Denver, CO., 2017)
   Google Scholar
• Chieffo A, Khawaja SA, Vesga B, et al. First in human evaluation of a novel sirolimus-eluting ultra-high molecular weight bioresorbable scaffold: 9-, 24-and 36-months imaging and clinical results from the multi-center RENASCENT study. Int J Cardiol. 2020;321:48–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.08.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrone M, Chieffo A, Khawaja SA, et al. RENASCENT III: first in human evaluation of the novel thin strut MAGNITUDE sirolimus-Eluting Ultra-high molecular weight MAGNITUDE bioresorbable scaffold: 9-month imaging and 2-year clinical results. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(5):e010013. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.010013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheye S, Vrolix M, Montorfano M, et al. Twelve-month clinical and imaging outcomes of the uncaging coronary DynamX bioadaptor system. EuroIntervention. 2020;16(12):e974–e981. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheye S, Morice MC, Zivelonghi C, et al. 24-month clinical follow-up and mechanistic insights from intravascular imaging following coronary implantation of the novel DynamX bioadaptor platform. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2023;46:106–112. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2022.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kansal MM, Wolska B, Verheye S, et al. Adaptive coronary artery rotational motion through uncaging of a drug-eluting bioadaptor aiming to reduce stress on the coronary artery. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022;39:52–57. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2021.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito S, Nef HM, Webster M, Verheye S, Dynam XRCTi. DynamX sirolimus-eluting Bioadaptor versus the zotarolimus-eluting Resolute Onyx stent in patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: Design and rationale of the multi-center, international, randomized BIODAPTOR-RCT. Cardiovasc Revasc Med, 55, 76–82 (2023).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao RL, Xu B, Sun Z, et al. First-in-human evaluation of a novel ultrathin sirolimus-eluting iron bioresorbable scaffold: 3-year outcomes of the IBS-FIM trial. EuroIntervention. 2023;19(3):222–231. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varcoe RL, Parikh SA, DeRubertis BG et al. Evaluation of an Infrapopliteal Drug-Eluting Resorbable Scaffold: Design Methodology for the LIFE-BTK Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2(4) (2023).10.1016/j.jscai.2023.100964
   Google Scholar