Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds: The Future of Coronary Stents?
Introduction
Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation has revolutionized the treatment of CAD, providing mechanical support to diseased vessels and restoring blood flow. While metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) have significantly improved outcomes compared to bare-metal stents, their permanent presence in the coronary artery can lead to long-term complications such as late and very late stent thrombosis, impaired vasomotion, and hinder future revascularization procedures [1] [2]. Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) emerged as a promising alternative, designed to provide temporary scaffolding and then gradually resorb, restoring the natural physiology of the vessel [3]. This academic blog post will explore the mechanism, advantages, challenges, and future prospects of BVS in the context of coronary stenting.
Mechanism of Action
BVS are typically constructed from biodegradable polymers, such as poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), or absorbable metals. These scaffolds are designed to provide radial support to the coronary artery immediately after implantation, similar to metallic stents. Over a period of 1 to 4 years, the BVS gradually degrades through hydrolysis, and the degradation products are metabolized and cleared from the body [4] [5]. As the scaffold resorbs, it transfers the mechanical load back to the vessel wall, allowing for the restoration of natural vasomotion, positive vessel remodeling, and potential for future revascularization without the impediment of a permanent metallic implant [2] [3].
Advantages of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds
The primary advantage of BVS lies in their transient nature. By disappearing over time, BVS aim to overcome the limitations associated with permanent metallic stents. These benefits include:
- **Restoration of Vasomotion:** The absence of a permanent metallic cage allows the treated vessel segment to regain its natural pulsatility and ability to dilate and constrict in response to physiological demands [4].
- **Positive Vessel Remodeling:** The gradual resorption of the scaffold may promote positive remodeling of the vessel, potentially reducing the risk of late lumen loss [2].
- **Elimination of Late Stent-Related Complications:** The removal of a foreign body reduces the long-term risk of inflammation, neoatherosclerosis, and very late stent thrombosis associated with permanent metallic stents [1] [3].
- **Facilitation of Future Interventions:** In the event of disease progression, the absence of a permanent stent simplifies future diagnostic imaging and revascularization procedures, such as bypass surgery or repeat PCI [2].
Challenges and Drawbacks
Despite their theoretical advantages, first-generation BVS, such as Abbott\'s Absorb, faced significant challenges that led to their withdrawal from the market. These challenges included [6]:
- **Higher Rates of Stent Thrombosis:** Early BVS designs were associated with higher rates of scaffold thrombosis, particularly very late scaffold thrombosis, compared to contemporary DES [1] [7]. This was attributed to thicker struts, which impaired endothelialization and increased thrombogenicity, and issues with scaffold integrity during degradation.
- **Mechanical Weakness and Elastic Recoil:** Polymer-based BVS offered less radial strength and were more prone to elastic recoil and malapposition compared to metallic stents, potentially leading to suboptimal acute results and increased restenosis rates [8].
- **Complex Implantation Technique:** The successful deployment of BVS required meticulous implantation techniques, including careful lesion preparation and post-dilation, which were often not adequately performed in early clinical practice [6].
- **Inflammatory Response:** The degradation process of some BVS materials could induce an inflammatory response, potentially contributing to adverse events.
Future Outlook
The lessons learned from first-generation BVS have paved the way for the development of second-generation devices with improved designs and materials. Current research focuses on [9] [10]:
- **Thinner Struts:** Reducing strut thickness to improve deliverability, reduce thrombogenicity, and enhance endothelialization.
- **Novel Materials:** Exploring new biodegradable polymers and absorbable metals with optimized mechanical properties and degradation profiles.
- **Enhanced Drug Elution:** Developing more effective drug elution strategies to prevent restenosis during the scaffolding phase.
- **Improved Device Design:** Innovations in scaffold architecture to enhance radial strength, reduce recoil, and ensure uniform degradation.
- **Refined Implantation Techniques:** Emphasizing optimal implantation strategies and operator training to maximize clinical success.
Recent studies have shown promising results for newer generation BVS, with some demonstrating comparable safety and efficacy to metallic DES in certain patient populations [11] [12]. While BVS are not yet a mainstream alternative to metallic stents, ongoing research and technological advancements suggest a potential comeback for these devices, particularly for younger patients or those requiring multiple interventions over their lifetime [4]. The future of coronary stenting may indeed involve a more widespread adoption of bioresorbable technologies, offering a truly transient solution for coronary artery disease.
References
[1] J. Iqbal, Y. Onuma, J. Ormiston, A. Abizaid, et al., "Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future," *European Heart Journal*, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 765-776, 2014. [https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/12/765/623185](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/12/765/623185) [2] X. Peng, W. Qu, Y. Jia, Y. Wang, B. Yu, et al., "Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Contemporary Status and Future Directions," *Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine*, vol. 7, p. 589571, 2020. [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2020.589571/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2020.589571/full) [3] "Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds: Should We use Them ...," *Brieflands.com*. [https://brieflands.com/journals/ijcp/articles/141366](https://brieflands.com/journals/ijcp/articles/141366) [4] G. W. Stone, "Bioresorbable coronary scaffolds are ready for a comeback," *EuroIntervention*, 2023. [https://eurointervention.pcronline.com/article/bioresorbable-coronary-scaffolds-are-ready-for-a-comeback-pros-and-cons](https://eurointervention.pcronline.com/article/bioresorbable-coronary-scaffolds-are-ready-for-a-comeback-pros-and-cons) [5] H. Jinnouchi, S. Torii, A. Sakamoto, et al., "Fully bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: lessons learned and future directions," *Nature Reviews Cardiology*, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-15, 2019. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-018-0124-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-018-0124-7) [6] "How cardiologists reacted to the rapid rise and fall of BVS," *Cardiovascular Business*, May 10, 2019. [https://cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/clinical/interventional-cardiology/how-cardiologists-reacted-rise-and-fall-bvs](https://cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/clinical/interventional-cardiology/how-cardiologists-reacted-rise-and-fall-bvs) [7] B. Cortese, M. Valgimigli, "Current know how on the absorb BVS technology: an experts\' survey," *International Journal of Cardiology*, vol. 180, pp. 1-7, 2015. [https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(14)02349-3/pdf](https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(14)02349-3/pdf) [8] Z. Gao, et al., "Peripheral vascular bioresorbable scaffolds: Past, present, ...," *ScienceDirect*, 2024. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950347724000276](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950347724000276) [9] W. A. Omar, D. J. Kumbhani, "The current literature on bioabsorbable stents: a review," *Current Atherosclerosis Reports*, vol. 21, no. 12, p. 58, 2019. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-019-0816-4](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-019-0816-4) [10] H. Y. Ang, H. Bulluck, P. Wong, S. S. Venkatraman, et al., "Bioresorbable stents: Current and upcoming bioresorbable technologies," *International Journal of Cardiology*, vol. 230, pp. 100-108, 2017. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527316338049](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527316338049) [11] "Coronary Bioresorbable Scaffolds Nearly as Safe and ...," *Mount Sinai*, May 17, 2023. [https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2023/coronary-bioresorbable-scaffolds-nearly-as-safe-and-effective-as-conventional-metal-stents-for-heart-disease](https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2023/coronary-bioresorbable-scaffolds-nearly-as-safe-and-effective-as-conventional-metal-stents-for-heart-disease) [12] F. Yang, et al., "Five-Year Outcomes of Bioresorbable Stent Therapy for ...," *PMC*, 2024. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11317335/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11317335/)