4.8 Review

Current status and future direction of biodegradable metallic and polymeric vascular scaffolds for next-generation stents

Journal

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
Volume 60, Issue -, Pages 3-22

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.07.019

Keywords

Coronary artery disease; Cardiovascular stents; Biodegradable metallic scaffolds; Biodegradable polymeric scaffolds; Next-generation stents

Funding

  1. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Republic Korea [100527321]
  2. KU-KIST Graduate School of Converging Science and Technology Program
  3. Ministry of Science & ICT (MSIT), Republic of Korea [2E26900] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Because of the increasing incidence of coronary artery disease, the importance of cardiovascular stents has continuously increased as a treatment of this disease. Biodegradable scaffolds fabricated from polymers and metals have emerged as promising materials for vascular stents because of their biodegradability. Although such stent framework materials have shown good clinical efficacy, it is difficult to decide whether polymers or metals are better vascular scaffolds because their properties are different. Therefore, there are still obstacles in the development of biodegradable vascular scaffolds in terms of improving clinical efficacy. This review analyzes the pros and cons of current stent materials with respect to five key factors for next-generation stent and discusses methods of improvement. Furthermore, we discuss biodegradable electronic stents with electrical conductivity, which has been considered unimportant until now, and highlight electrical conductivity as a key factor in the development of next-generation stents. (C) 2017 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available