DOTmed Home MRI Oncology Ultrasound Molecular Imaging X-Ray Cardiology Health IT Business Affairs
News Home Parts & Service Operating Room CT Women's Health Proton Therapy Endoscopy HTMs Mobile Imaging
Current Location:
> This Story

Log in or Register to rate this News Story
Forward Printable StoryPrint Comment



Cardiology Homepage

Bone density scans can predict risk of cardiovascular disease New study highlights a novel way to assess the degree of vascular calcification

PET beats SPECT for detecting coronary artery disease: study Detected 79 percent of severe obstructive cases versus 70 percent

Siemens launches ACUSON Bonsai portable cardiovascular ultrasound at ACC Premium features in a smaller footprint

World's smallest mechanical heart valve scores FDA approval Meets the needs of young pediatric patients

Canon acquires cardiac IT manufacturer Fysicon Obtains wide portfolio of monitoring systems sold globally

VoCare develops Vitals360 Can assess six vitals in chronic disease management

ACC outlines how to prevent cardiac device hacking in new paper Mitigating risk to pacemakers and ICDs

FDA greenlights AI software for stroke warning in CT analysis Enables specialists to intervene before notified by a radiologist

Gadolinium could light way to stroke assessment through the eyes Could eye evaluations replace brain imaging for stroke assessment?

European Heart Rhythm Association recommends remote navigation tech to reduce occupational radiation exposure Replacement for heavy lead aprons

A conventional metal stent

Cardiologist cautions against use of bioresorbable stents in light of new research

by Lauren Dubinsky , Senior Reporter
Cardiologists should continue to use conventional drug-eluting stents instead of the newer bioresorbable stents, according to an editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Debabrata Mukherjee of the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso believes that the benefits are not worth the risk.

Abbott’s Absorb became the first bioresorbable stent when it was approved by the FDA in July 2016. It’s designed to naturally dissolve in the body three years after its implanted, which avoids the risk of blood clots, scar tissue or blockage reoccurrence.

Story Continues Below Advertisement

Servicing GE Nuclear Medicine equipment with OEM trained engineers

We offer full service contracts, PM contracts, rapid response, time and material,camera relocation. Nuclear medicine equipment service provider since 1975. Click or call now for more information 800 96 NUMED

But things changed in March when a study published in NEJM showed that Absorb is associated with an elevated risk of device thrombosis. Out of 1,845 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the researchers assigned 924 to receive a bioresorbable stent and 921 to receive a drug-eluting stent.

They found that thrombosis formed in 31 of the patients who received the Absorb stent, but only in eight of those with a drug-eluting stent, after a two-year follow-up. There was, however, no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel failure between the two groups.

In his editorial, Dr. Mukherjee explained that since the current generation of metallic drug-eluting stents are associated with excellent outcomes, there’s little rationale in using bioresorbable stents at this time.

"Bioresorbable stents cost more than the typical metallic stent and they take longer for cardiologists to insert," he wrote. "They are also no more effective, and less safe. As a physician, why am I going to use something that costs me more if it can cause risk or harm to my patients?"

There are currently 37 trials underway investigating Absorb further, five of which are enrolling more than 2,000 patients each. These trials will be completed in the next four to five years and will provide longer-term evidence.

Absorb has not been recalled, but ECRI Institute told HCB News that this new evidence may drive health care providers to rethink whether they want to use it. In the very least, they will discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of the bioresorbable stent versus the drug-eluting stent with their patients.

Dr. Mukherjee noted that long-term, increased anti-clotting medicine may reduce thrombosis in patients who receive Absorb, but that the risk of bleeding isn’t worth it.

He hopes that the next generation of bioresorbable stents will have better results. He recommends that manufacturers aim to design stents with quicker reabsorption rates, thinner struts and improved strength.

Back to HCB News
  Pages: 1

Cardiology Homepage

You Must Be Logged In To Post A Comment

Increase Your
Brand Awareness
Auctions + Private Sales
Get The
Best Price
Buy Equipment/Parts
Find The
Lowest Price
Daily News
Read The
Latest News
Browse All
DOTmed Users
Ethics on DOTmed
View Our
Ethics Program
Gold Parts Vendor Program
Receive PH
Gold Service Dealer Program
Receive RFP/PS
Healthcare Providers
See all
HCP Tools
A Job
Parts Hunter +EasyPay
Get Parts
Recently Certified
View Recently
Certified Users
Recently Rated
View Recently
Certified Users
Rental Central
Rent Equipment
For Less
Sell Equipment/Parts
Get The
Most Money
Service Technicians Forum
Find Help
And Advice
Simple RFP
Get Equipment
Virtual Trade Show
Find Service
For Equipment
Access and use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions of our LEGAL NOTICE & PRIVACY NOTICE
Property of and Proprietary to, Inc. Copyright ©2001-2018, Inc.