Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Clinical Outcomes and Considerations

Tissue-Engineered Heart Valves: A Call for Mechanistic Studies

Heart valve disease carries a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality. Outcomes are significantly improved by valve replacement, but currently available mechanical and biological replacement valves are associated with complications of their own. Mechanical valves have a high rate of thromboembolism and require lifelong anticoagulation. Biological prosthetic valves have a much shorter lifespan, and they are prone to tearing and degradation. Both types of valves lack the capacity for growth, making them particularly problematic in pediatric patients. Tissue engineering has the potential to overcome these challenges by creating a neovalve composed of native tissue that is capable of growth and remodeling. The first tissue-engineered heart valve (TEHV) was created more than 20 years ago in an ovine model, and the technology has been advanced to clinical trials in the intervening decades. Some TEHVs have had clinical success, whereas others have failed, with structural degeneration resulting in patient deaths. The etiologies of these complications are poorly understood because much of the research in this field has been performed in large animals and humans, and, therefore, there are few studies of the mechanisms of neotissue formation. This review examines the need for a TEHV to treat pediatric patients with valve disease, the history of TEHVs, and a future that would benefit from extension of the reverse translational trend in this field to include small animal studies.

Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Coronary Intervention: Unmet Needs and Evolution

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) represent a novel paradigm in the 40-year history of interventional cardiology. Restoration of cyclic pulsatility and physiologic vasomotion, adaptive vascular remodeling, plaque regression, and removal of the trigger for late adverse events are expected BRS benefits over current metallic drug-eluting stents. However, first-generation BRS devices have significant manufacturing limitations and rely on optimal implantation technique to avoid experiencing an excess of clinical events. There are currently at least 22 BRS devices in different stages of development, including many trials of device iterations with thinner (<150 µm) struts than first-generation BRS. This article reviews the outcomes of commercially available and potentially upcoming BRS, focusing on the most recent stages of clinical development and future directions for each scaffold type.