Mechanical Behavior of Polymer-based . Metallic-based Bioresorbable Stents

Overview

Journal J Thorac Dis

Publisher AME Publishing Company

Specialty Pulmonary Medicine

Date 2017 Sep 13

PMID 28894598

Citations 17

Authors

Hui Ying Ang

Ying Ying Huang

Soo Teik Lim

Philip Wong

Michael Joner

Nicolas Foin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome the drawbacks of current metallic drug-eluting stents (DES), such as late in-stent restenosis and caging of the vessel permanently. The concept of the BRS is to provide transient support to the vessel during healing before being degraded and resorbed by the body, freeing the vessel and restoring vasomotion. The mechanical properties of the BRS are influenced by the choice of the material and processing methods. Due to insufficient radial strength of the bioresorbable material, BRS often required large strut profile as compared to conventional metallic DES. Having thick struts will in turn affect the deliverability of the device and may cause flow disturbance, thereby increasing the incidence of acute thrombotic events. Currently, the bioresorbable poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) polymer and magnesium (Mg) alloys are being investigated as materials in BRS technologies. The bioresorption process, mechanical properties, observations and clinical outcomes of PLLA-based and Mg-based BRS will be examined in this review.

Citing Articles

Bioresorbable vascular metallic scaffolds: Current status and research trends.

Drelich J, Goldman J Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2025; 24.

PMID: 39830623 PMC: 11741677. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobme.2022.100411.

Polydiolcitrate-MoS Composite for 3D Printing Radio-Opaque, Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds.

Szydlowska B, Ding Y, Moore C, Cai Z, Torres-Castanedo C, Collins C ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2024; 16(34):45422-45432.

PMID: 39102678 PMC: 11368090. DOI: 10.1021/acsami.4c07364.

Evaluation of coronary stents: A review of types, materials, processing techniques, design, and problems.

Ahadi F, Azadi M, Biglari M, Bodaghi M, Khaleghian A Heliyon. 2023; 9(2):e13575.

PMID: 36846695 PMC: 9950843. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13575.

A Review of the Release Profiles and Efficacies of Chemotherapy Drug-Loaded Electrospun Membranes.

Lin Z, Chen H, Xu J, Wang J, Wang H, Huang S Polymers (Basel). 2023; 15(2).

PMID: 36679132 PMC: 9865042. DOI: 10.3390/polym15020251.

Systems, Properties, Surface Modification and Applications of Biodegradable Magnesium-Based Alloys: A Review.

Chen J, Xu Y, Kolawole S, Wang J, Su X, Tan L Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(14).

PMID: 35888498 PMC: 9316815. DOI: 10.3390/ma15145031.

References

Oberhauser J, Hossainy S, Rapoza R . Design principles and performance of bioresorbable polymeric vascular scaffolds. EuroIntervention. 2011; 5 Suppl F:F15-22. DOI: 10.4244/EIJV5IFA3. View

Kimura T, Kozuma K, Tanabe K, Nakamura S, Yamane M, Muramatsu T . 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):3332-42. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv435. View

Panoulas V, Miyazaki T, Sato K, Naganuma T, Sticchi A, Kawamoto H . Procedural outcomes of patients with calcified lesions treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11(12):1355-62. DOI: 10.4244/EIJY15M03_11. View

Stefanini G, Taniwaki M, Windecker S . Coronary stents: novel developments. Heart. 2013; 100(13):1051-61. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-303522. View

Foin N, Ng J, Wong P, Di Mario C . Current bioresorbable scaffold technologies for treatment of coronary artery diseases: Do polymer and Magnesium platforms differ?. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 223:526-528. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.117. View

Rizik D, Hermiller J, Kereiakes D . The ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold: A novel, fully resorbable drug-eluting stent: Current concepts and overview of clinical evidence. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 86(4):664-77. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26172. View

Dalos D, Gangl C, Roth C, Krenn L, Scherzer S, Vertesich M . Mechanical properties of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to the metallic everolimus-eluting stent. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016; 16:104. PMC: 4880814. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-016-0296-1. View

Xu L, Yamamoto A . Characteristics and cytocompatibility of biodegradable polymer film on magnesium by spin coating. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2012; 93:67-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2011.12.009. View

Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, Toelg R, Lemos P, von Birgelen C . Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de-novo coronary artery lesions (BIOSOLVE-II): 6 month results of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, first-in-man trial. Lancet. 2015; 387(10013):31-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00447-X. View

10.

Berglund J, Guo Y, Wilcox J . Challenges related to development of bioabsorbable vascular stents. EuroIntervention. 2011; 5 Suppl F:F72-9. DOI: 10.4244/EIJV5IFA12. View

11.

Natsuaki M, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Kadota K, Yamaji K . Late adverse events after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stent and bare-metal stent: long-term (5-7 years) follow-up of the Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome study-Kyoto registry Cohort-2. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(2):168-79. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000987. View

12.

Ellis S, Kereiakes D, Metzger D, Caputo R, Rizik D, Teirstein P . Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(20):1905-15. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509038. View

13.

Waksman R, Zumstein P, Pritsch M, Wittchow E, Haude M, Lapointe-Corriveau C . Second-generation magnesium scaffold Magmaris: device design and preclinical evaluation in a porcine coronary artery model. EuroIntervention. 2017; 13(4):440-449. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00915. View

14.

Hornberger H, Virtanen S, Boccaccini A . Biomedical coatings on magnesium alloys - a review. Acta Biomater. 2012; 8(7):2442-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.04.012. View

15.

Sharkawi T, Cornhill F, Lafont A, Sabaria P, Vert M . Intravascular bioresorbable polymeric stents: a potential alternative to current drug eluting metal stents. J Pharm Sci. 2007; 96(11):2829-37. DOI: 10.1002/jps.20957. View

16.

Muramatsu T, Onuma Y, Zhang Y, Bourantas C, Kharlamov A, Diletti R . Progress in treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention: the stent of the future. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2014; 66(6):483-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2012.12.009. View

17.

Stone G, Gao R, Kimura T, Kereiakes D, Ellis S, Onuma Y . 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016; 387(10025):1277-89. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01039-9. View

18.

Serruys P, Chevalier B, Sotomi Y, Cequier A, Carrie D, Piek J . 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. View

19.

Foin N, Lee R, Bourantas C, Mattesini A, Soh N, Lim J . Bioresorbable vascular scaffold radial expansion and conformation compared to a metallic platform: insights from in vitro expansion in a coronary artery lesion model. EuroIntervention. 2016; 12(7):834-44. DOI: 10.4244/EIJV12I7A138. View

20.

Wiebe J, Nef H, Hamm C . Current status of bioresorbable scaffolds in the treatment of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(23):2541-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.041. View