| Title |
Bioresorbable scaffolds in the treatment of coronary artery disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s22547 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yaojun Zhang, Christos V Bourantas, Vasim Farooq, Takashi Muramatsu, Roberto Diletti, Yoshinobu Onuma, Hector M Garcia-Garcia, Patrick W Serruys |
| Abstract |
Drug-eluting stents have reduced the risk of in-stent restenosis and have broadened the application in percutaneous coronary intervention in coronary artery disease. However, the concept of using a permanent metallic endovascular device to restore the patency of a stenotic artery has inherited pitfalls, namely the presence of a foreign body within the artery causing vascular inflammation, late complications such as restenosis and stent thrombosis, and impeding the restoration of the physiologic function of the stented segment. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were introduced to potentially overcome these limitations, as they provide temporary scaffolding and then disappear, liberating the treated vessel from its cage. Currently, several BRSs are available, undergoing evaluation either in clinical trials or in preclinical settings. The aim of this review is to present the new developments in BRS technology, describe the mechanisms involved in the resorption process, and discuss the potential future prospects of this innovative therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Russia | 1 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 22% |
| Engineering | 13 | 21% |
| Materials Science | 6 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2014.
All research outputs
#16,345,315
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#172
of 313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,185
of 207,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 207,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.