Table 2.

Key Clinical Performance Measures of Selected Bioresorbable Scaffolds.

Device (Manufacturer) Patients Enrolled Angiographic Follow-up (months post implant) Late Lumen Loss (mm) Clinical Follow-up Period (months) TLF (%) Scaffold Thrombosis (%) Ischemia-driven TLR (%)
ABSORB GT1 BRS (Abbott) 2161* 6 0.19±0.18 60 11.6 2.5 8.4
DESolve Nx (Elixir Medical) 122 6 0.20±0.32 60 7.4 0 4.1
ART Pure (Arterial Remodelling Technologies) 30 6 - - - - -
MeRes 100 (Meril Life Sciences) 108 6 0.15±0.23 12 - 0 0.9
FORTITUDE (Amaranth Medical) 63 24 0.27±0.37 24 4.9 1.8 5.3
APTITUDE (Amaranth Medical) 60 9 0.33±0.36 24 3.4 0 0
MAGNITUDE (Amaranth Medical) 70 9 0.19±0.16 9 2.9 0 0
Mirage (Manli) 35 12 0.37±0.14 12 17.2 3.4 17.2
NeoVas (Lepu Medical Technology) 1103 MSCT follow-up - 12 3.0 0.5 1.7
Fantom (REVA Medical) 117 6 0.25±0.40 24 4.2 0.8 2.9
Magmaris (Biotronik) 1075 12 0.52±0.39 36 4.3 0.5 2.4
*Pooled analysis of ABSORB II, ABSORB JAPAN, ABSORB CHINA, ABSORB III; >150,000 commercially treated patients worldwide.

MSCT, multi-slice computed tomography; TLF, target lesion failure; TLR, target lesion revascularization.

Modified with updated data from Jinnouchi H et al.6 with permission, ©2018 Springer Nature.

RMMJ Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal Rambam Health Care Campus 2020 April; 11(2): e0016. ISSN: 2076-9172
Published online 2020 April 29. doi: 10.5041/RMMJ.10402