Ricerca avanzata

Home > Riviste > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2015 Ottobre;63(5) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2015 Ottobre;63(5):427-39



Rivista sulle Malattie del Cuore e dei Vasi

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

Periodicità: Bimestrale

ISSN 0026-4725

Online ISSN 1827-1618


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


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

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.

lingua: Inglese


inizio pagina