Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) have been advocated as the ‘fourth revolution’ in interventional cardiology because they could provide temporary scaffolding and then ‘disappear’ (resorb) potentially significantly improving coronary artery disease treatment. BRS technology has gradually matured, and there are many devices available worldwide, which are currently undergoing preclinical or clinical testing. Due to the concerns related to polylactide scaffolds, magnesium alloy is now one of the most promising resorbable technologies despite available evidences on its performances in vivo are limited to small observational studies. In this state-of-art review we present Magmaris™ (Biotronik AG, Buelach, Switzerland) magnesium-based BRS from bench to bedside, reviewing to date available clinical trial data and current recommendations for its optimal use in clinical practice.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Roubin GS, Cannon AD, Agrawal SK et al. Intracoronary stenting for acute and threatened closure complicating percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation 85(3), 916–927 (1992).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. Sigwart U, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, Joffre F, Kappenberger L. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis after transluminal angioplasty. N. Engl. J. Med. 316(12), 701–706 (1987).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Serruys PW, Keane D. The bailout stent. Is a friend in need always a friend indeed? Circulation 88(5), 2455–2457 (1993).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N. Engl. J. Med. 346(23), 1773–1780 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Finn AV, Joner M, Nakazawa G et al. Pathological correlates of late drug-eluting stent thrombosis: strut coverage as a marker of endothelialization. Circulation 115(18), 2435–2441 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A et al. Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 48(1), 193–202 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. D’Ascenzo F, Barbero U, Moretti C et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for stable angina: meta-regression of randomized trials. Contemp. Clin. Trials 38(1), 51–58 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Sotomi Y, Onuma Y, Collet C et al. Bioresorbable scaffold: the emerging reality and future directions. Circ. Res. 120(8), 1341–1352 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(20), 1905–1915 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Mahmoud AN, Barakat AF, Elgendy AY et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 10(5), 1–7 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
11. Mishra S. A fresh look at bioresorbable scaffold technology: intuition pumps. Indian Heart J. 69(1), 107–111 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Bangalore S, Bezerra HG, Rizik DG et al. The state of the absorb bioresorbable scaffold: consensus from an expert panel. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 10(23), 2349–2359 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 40(2), 87–165 (2019). •• The most updated consensus document about modalities of coronary revascularization.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Byrne RA, Stefanini GG, Capodanno D et al. Report of an ESC-EAPCI Task Force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary. Eur. Heart J. 39(18), 1591–1601 (2018). •• Expert position paper on bioreabsorbable scaffold, with particular focus on poly-L-lactic acid scaffold but also magnesium ones.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Rapetto C, Leoncini M. Magmaris: a new generation metallic sirolimus-eluting fully bioresorbable scaffold: present status and future perspectives. J. Thorac. Dis. 9(Suppl 9), S903–S913 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Larsen K, Cheng C, Tempel D et al. Capture of circulatory endothelial progenitor cells and accelerated re-endothelialization of a bio-engineered stent in human ex vivo shunt and rabbit denudation model. Eur. Heart J. 33(1), 120–128 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Kolandaivelu K, Swaminathan R, Gibson WJ et al. Stent thrombogenicity early in high-risk interventional settings is driven by stent design and deployment and protected by polymer-drug coatings. Circulation 123(13), 1400–1409 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Vormann J. Magnesium: nutrition and metabolism. Mol. Aspects Med. 24(1–3), 27–37 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Mishra S. Bioresorbable scaffold – fourth revolution or failed revolution: is low scaffold strut thickness the wrong target? Indian Heart J. 69(6), 687–689 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Schmidt W, Behrens P, Brandt-Wunderlich C, Siewert S, Grabow N, Schmitz KP. In vitro performance investigation of bioresorbable scaffolds – standard tests for vascular stents and beyond. Cardiovasc. Revascularization Med. Mol. Interv. 17(6), 375–383 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Campos CM, Muramatsu T, Iqbal J et al. Bioresorbable drug-eluting magnesium-alloy scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14(12), 24492–24500 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Smith LF, Heagerty AM, Bing RF, Barnett DB. Intravenous infusion of magnesium sulphate after acute myocardial infarction: effects on arrhythmias and mortality. Int. J. Cardiol. 12(2), 175–183 (1986).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Christensen CW, Rieder MA, Silverstein EL, Gencheff NE. Magnesium sulfate reduces myocardial infarct size when administered before but not after coronary reperfusion in a canine model. Circulation 92(9), 2617–2621 (1995).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Kemp PA, Gardiner SM, March JE, Rubin PC, Bennett T. Assessment of the effects of endothelin-1 and magnesium sulphate on regional blood flows in conscious rats, by the coloured microsphere reference technique. Br. J. Pharmacol. 126(3), 621–626 (1999).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Berthon N, Laurant P, Fellman D, Berthelot A. Effect of magnesium on mRNA expression and production of endothelin-1 in DOCA-salt hypertensive rats. J. Cardiovasc. Pharma. 42(1), 24 –31 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Heublein B, Rohde R, Kaese V, Niemeyer M, Hartung W, Haverich A. Biocorrosion of magnesium alloys: a new principle in cardiovascular implant technology? Heart Br. Card. Soc. 89(6), 651–656 (2003).
CASGoogle Scholar
27. Rukshin V, Shah PK, Cercek B, Finkelstein A, Tsang V, Kaul S. Comparative antithrombotic effects of magnesium sulfate and the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors tirofiban and eptifibatide in a canine model of stent thrombosis. Circulation 105(16), 1970–1975 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Sternberg K, Gratz M, Koeck K et al. Magnesium used in bioabsorbable stents controls smooth muscle cell proliferation and stimulates endothelial cells in vitro. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 100(1), 41–50 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Joner M, Ruppelt P, Zumstein P et al. Preclinical evaluation of degradation kinetics and elemental mapping of first- and second-generation bioresorbable magnesium scaffolds. EuroIntervention 14(9), e1040– e0148 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Sheehy A, Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Diletti R et al. In vivo characterisation of bioresorbable vascular scaffold strut interfaces using optical coherence tomography with Gaussian line spread function analysis. EuroIntervention 7(10), 1227–1235 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Perkins LEL et al. Intracoronary optical coherence tomography and histology at 1 month and 2, 3, and 4 years after implantation of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in a porcine coronary artery model: an attempt to decipher the human optical coherence tomography images in the ABSORB trial. Circulation 122(22), 2288–2300 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial. Lancet 371(9616), 899–907 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Capodanno D, Gori T, Nef H et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry. EuroIntervention 10(10), 1144–1153 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Cortese B, di Palma G, Cerrato E et al. Clinical and angiographic outcome of a single center, real world population treated with a dedicated technique of implantation for bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. The FAtebenefratelli Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (FABS) registry. J. Intervent. Cardiol. 30(5), 427–432 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Moscarella E, Ielasi A, De Angelis MC et al. Are acute coronary syndromes an ideal scenario for bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation? J. Thorac. Dis. 9(Suppl. 9), S969–S978 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Lipinski MJ, Escarcega RO, Baker NC et al. Scaffold thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention with ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 9(1), 12–24 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N. Engl. J. Med. 376(24), 2319–2328 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Rukshin V, Azarbal B, Shah PK et al. Intravenous magnesium in experimental stent thrombosis in swine. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 21(9), 1544–1549 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Di Mario C, Griffiths H, Goktekin O et al. Drug-eluting bioabsorbable magnesium stent. J. Intervent. Cardiol. 17(6), 391–395 (2004).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Bosiers M, Deloose K, Verbist J, Peeters P. First clinical application of absorbable metal stents in the treatment of critical limb ischemia: 12-month results. Vascular Disease Management 2(4), 86–91 (2005).
Google Scholar
41. Schranz D, Zartner P, Michel-Behnke I, Akintürk H. Bioabsorbable metal stents for percutaneous treatment of critical recoarctation of the aorta in a newborn. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. Off. J. Soc. Card. Angiogr. Interv. 67(5), 671–673 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. McMahon CJ, Oslizlok P, Walsh KP. Early restenosis following biodegradable stent implantation in an aortopulmonary collateral of a patient with pulmonary atresia and hypoplastic pulmonary arteries. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 69(5), 735–738 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Erbel R, Di Mario C, Bartunek J et al. Temporary scaffolding of coronary arteries with bioabsorbable magnesium stents: a prospective, non-randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 369(9576), 1869–1875 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Waksman R, Erbel R, Di Mario C et al. Early- and long-term intravascular ultrasound and angiographic findings after bioabsorbable magnesium stent implantation in human coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2(4), 312–320 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
45. Haude M, Erbel R, Erne P et al. Safety and performance of the DRug-Eluting Absorbable Metal Scaffold (DREAMS) in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 3-year results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial. EuroIntervention 12(2), e160–166 (2016). •• Here long-term results of the magnesium scaffolds are presented through the analysis of outcomes in a prospective, nonrandomized study.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Windecker S, Haude M, Neumann F-J et al. Comparison of a novel biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: results of the randomized BIOFLOW-II trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 8(2), e001441 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A et al. Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de-novo coronary artery lesions (BIOSOLVE-II): 6 month results of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, first-in-man trial. Lancet Lond. Engl. 387(10013), 31–39 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. NIH U.S. National Library of Medicine,BIOTRONIKS – safety and performance in de NOvo Lesion of NatiVE Coronary Arteries With Magmaris – Registry: BIOSOLVE-IV. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02817802
Google Scholar
49. Haude M, Ince H, Kische S et al. Sustained safety and clinical performance of a drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold up to 24 months: pooled outcomes of BIOSOLVE-II and BIOSOLVE-III. EuroIntervention 13(4), 432–439 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
50. Haude M, Ince H, Kische S et al. Safety and clinical performance of a drug eluting absorbable metal scaffold in the treatment of subjects with de novo lesions in native coronary arteries: pooled 12-month outcomes of BIOSOLVE-II and BIOSOLVE-III. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. Off. J. Soc. Card. Angiogr. Interv. 92(7), E502–E511 (2018). •• Pooled analysis of patients who were enrolled in both BIOSOLVE-II and BIOSOLVE-III trials, including pooled follow-up data at 6 months and BIOSOLVE-II data at 24 months.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
51. Iqbal J, Onuma Y, Ormiston J, Abizaid A, Waksman R, Serruys P. Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur. Heart J. 35(12), 765–776 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garcia-Garcia HM et al. Dynamics of vessel wall changes following the implantation of the absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a multi-imaging modality study at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. EuroIntervention 9(11), 1271–1284 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Hideo-Kajita A, Garcia-Garcia H, Azizi V et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between Magmaris™ (Dreams 2G) and Orsiro drug eluting stent: pooled patient level analysis from Biosolve II-III and Bioflow II trials. Presented at: ACC, FL, USA, 12 March 2018.
Google Scholar
54. Acute performance of a drug eluting absorbable metal scaffold (DREAMS 2G) in patients with de Novo Lesions in NatiVE Coronary Arteries: BIOSOLVE-III. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02716220
Google Scholar
55. Lee M. . BIOSOLVE-IV: 12-month follow-up of the safety and performance of the resorbable magnesium scaffold (Magmaris^™) in a real-world setting with first 400 patients. Presented at: TCT, CA, USA, 24–28 September 2019.
Google Scholar
56. Fajadet J, Haude M, Joner M et al. Magmaris preliminary recommendation upon commercial launch: a consensus from the expert panel on 14 April 2016. EuroIntervention 12(7), 828–833 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
57. Johan B, Maarten V, Nina VD et al. The drug-eluting resorbable magnesium vascular scaffold in complex coronary bifurcations: insights from an in vivo multimodality imaging study. Eurointervention J. 13(17), 2036–2046 ( 2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
58. Quadri G, Tomassini F, Cerrato E, Varbella F. First reported case of magnesium-made bioresorbable scaffold to treat spontaneous left anterior descending coronary artery dissection. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. Off. J. Soc. Card. Angiogr. Interv. 90(5), 768–772 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
59. Quadri G, Cerrato E, Rolfo C, Varbella F. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection treated with magnesium-made bioresorbable scaffold: 1-year angiographic and optical coherence tomography follow-up. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 93(3), E130–E133 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
60. Barkholt TØ, Neghabat O, Terkelsen CJ, Christiansen EH, Holm NR. Restenosis in a collapsed magnesium bioresorbable scaffold. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 10(10), 1–2 (2017). • Paper focusing on possible risk of retenosis in a Magmaris scaffold.
Google Scholar
61. Marynissen T, McCutcheon K, Bennett J. Early collapse causing stenosis in a resorbable magnesium scaffold. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. Off. J. Soc. Card. Angiogr. Interv. 92(2), 310–312 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
62. Mitomo S, Demir OM, Giannini F, Latib A, Colombo A. Magmaris bioresorbable scaffold – possible dismantling 2 months after implantation on intravascular ultrasound. Circ. J. 83(6), CJ–1418 (2019).
Google Scholar
63. Waksman R, Lipinski MJ, Acampado E et al. Comparison of acute thrombogenicity for metallic and polymeric bioabsorbable scaffolds: magmaris versus absorb in a porcine arteriovenous shunt model. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 10(8), 1–10 (2017). • Comparing analysis of poly-L-lactic acid and magnesium scaffold in a porcine model.
Google Scholar
64. D’Ascenzo F, Colombo F, Barbero U et al. Discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy over 12 months after acute coronary syndromes increases risk for adverse events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Intervent. Cardiol. 27(3), 233–241 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
65. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A et al. Sustained safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 12-month clinical results and angiographic findings of the BIOSOLVE-II first-in-man trial. Eur. Heart J. 37(35), 2701–2709 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
66. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the task force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. Heart J. 39(3), 213–260 (2018). •• Consensus paper in which are expressed recommendations about the length of Double antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), which received a bioresorbable scaffold.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
67. Haude M, Ince H, Tölg R et al. Sustained safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold (DREAMS 2G) in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 3-year clinical results and angiographic findings of the BIOSOLVE-II first-in-man trial. EuroIntervention 13(4), 432–439 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
68. Mishra S. BVS, RDN, IABP: the Afghanistan of interventional cardiology trials. Indian Heart J. 70(1), 1–3 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 15, No. 4

Metrics

Downloaded 6,521 times

History

Received 29 October 2018

Accepted 28 March 2019

Published online 14 May 2019

Published in print July 2019

Information

Keywords

Disclaimer

In addition to the peer-review process, with the author’s consent, the manufacturer of the product discussed in this article was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for factual accuracy. Changes were made by the author at their discretion and based on scientific or editorial merit only. The author maintained full control over the manuscript, including content, wording and conclusions.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

E Cerrato received a speaker fee in educational events supported by Biotronik, Abbott and Volcano, and a research grant from AstraZeneca; G Quadri and F Tomassini received speaker fee in educational events supported by Biotronik and Abbott; F Ferrari received speaker fee in educational events supported by Biotronik and Bayer; N Gonzalo received speaker fee in educational events supported by Abbott and Boston Scientific; J Escaned received speaker fee at educational events and a consultant for Boston Scientific and Philips Volcano; F Varbella joined advisory board from OrbusNeich, Biosensors, AbbottVascular, CID, Teleflex, Stentys; U Barbero, JA Gil Romero and H. Mejia-Renteria have nothing to declare. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Magmaris™ resorbable magnesium scaffold: state-of-art review

Abstract

References