Home > Journals > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2015 October;63(5) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2015 October;63(5):427-39

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

MINERVA CARDIOANGIOLOGICA

A Journal on Heart and Vascular Diseases


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,752


eTOC

 

REVIEWS  


Minerva Cardioangiologica 2015 October;63(5):427-39

language: English

Current controversies over bioresorbable scaffolds

Raval Z. 1, Kirtane A. 1, 2, Moses J. 1, 2

1 Columbia University Medical Center, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA;
2 Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA


PDF  


The field of coronary intervention has made great strides since the first balloon angioplasty performed by Andreas Gruentzig in Zurich in 1977.1 Starting with that case, coronary interventional data has been rigorously generated through single-center and multicenter registries and randomized trials, allowing for remarkably broad-sweeping, evidence-based, leapfrog improvements in technology and outcomes in just a few decades. In this paper we outline the natural evolution from “plain old balloon angioplasty” (POBA) to bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) and other novel therapies, and discuss the emerging data regarding the promise of BRS as well as controversies and residual concerns regarding this technology.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail

zraval9@gmail.com