Interventionalists eager for better bioresorbable stents

However, Dr. Stone suggested that reductions in strut thickness might be the answer for reduced TLF for both BRS and DES devices. If so, there are several reasons to believe that this would ultimately favor BRS as the dominant technology.

“We did not get there with the 150-mcm strut thickness scaffold, but now we have struts as thin as 80 mcm. I’m pretty confident that with smaller struts we will see great results,” countered Dr. Stone.

Returning to the theme that BRS devices address an unmet need, Dr. Stone contended that BRS is the preferred strategy if advances render BRS and drug-eluting stents equally safe and effective. Not least of the reasons is patient preference. “It is an undeniable fact that based on cultural, religious, or personal beliefs, many patients prefer not to live their lives with a permanently implanted device,” he said.

The audience agreed. Asked for a show of hands regarding whether bioresorbable stents technology has the potential to address an unmet need, the majority vote was overwhelmingly in favor of Dr. Stone’s position. Based on a visual vote count that seemed to clearly affirm that BRS addresses and unmet need, Dr. Stone contended that a statistical analysis would have had a P value “with about eight zeros after the decimal point.”

Dr. Stone reports a financial relationship with Reva Medical. Dr. Windecker reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and St. Jude.