Sadia Hassan1, Murtaza Najabat Ali2, Bakhtawar Ghafoor1. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (BMES), School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (SMME), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (BMES), School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (SMME), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan. murtaza.bme@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Introduction of Bare Metal Stents (BMS) was itself a revolutionary step in the history of the medical industry; however, Drug Eluting Stents (DES) maintained its superiority over BMS in every aspect from restenosis rate to late lumen loss. The reason behind the magnanimous position of the DES in the stent market is the degree of improvement with which it evolves. New and better stents come into the market every year, surpassing their predecessors by many folds. LITERATURE REVIEW: This review paper discusses the journey of DES with supporting clinical trials in detail. In the first generation, there were stainless-steel stents with thicker coatings. Although they had superior results compared to BMS, there was still room for improvement. Afterward came the second-generation stents, which had superior metal platforms with thinner struts and thin coatings. The drugs were also changed from Paclitaxel and Sirolimus to Zotrolimus and Everolimus. These stents performed best; however, there was an issue of permanent coating, which remained intact over the stent surface after complete drug elution and started to cause issues in longer-term studies. Hence, an improved version of DES was introduced to these permanent coatings called the third generation of drug eluting stents, which initially utilized biodegradable polymer and ultimately moved towards polymer free drug coatings. This generation has introduced a unique amalgam of technologies to achieve its polymer free coatings; however, researchers have numerous prospects of growth in this field. This review paper highlights the major coups of stent technology evolution from BMS to DES, from thick polymeric coatings to thin coatings and from durable polymers to polymer free DES. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, though the medical industry promptly accepted BMS as the best treatment option for cardiovascular diseases; however, DES has provided even better results than BMS. In DES, the first and second generation has ruled the technology for many years and are still on the shelves. Still, the issues aroused due to durable polymer shifted the attention towards biodegradable drug eluting stents, the third generation growing rapidly. But the scientific community has not restricted themselves and is investigating bioresorbable stents that completely eliminate the polymer intervention in drug eluting stent technology.
BACKGROUND: Introduction of Bare Metal Stents (BMS) was itself a revolutionary step in the history of the medical industry; however, Drug Eluting Stents (DES) maintained its superiority over BMS in every aspect from restenosis rate to late lumen loss. The reason behind the magnanimous position of the DES in the stent market is the degree of improvement with which it evolves. New and better stents come into the market every year, surpassing their predecessors by many folds. LITERATURE REVIEW: This review paper discusses the journey of DES with supporting clinical trials in detail. In the first generation, there were stainless-steel stents with thicker coatings. Although they had superior results compared to BMS, there was still room for improvement. Afterward came the second-generation stents, which had superior metal platforms with thinner struts and thin coatings. The drugs were also changed from Paclitaxel and Sirolimus to Zotrolimus and Everolimus. These stents performed best; however, there was an issue of permanent coating, which remained intact over the stent surface after complete drug elution and started to cause issues in longer-term studies. Hence, an improved version of DES was introduced to these permanent coatings called the third generation of drug eluting stents, which initially utilized biodegradable polymer and ultimately moved towards polymer free drug coatings. This generation has introduced a unique amalgam of technologies to achieve its polymer free coatings; however, researchers have numerous prospects of growth in this field. This review paper highlights the major coups of stent technology evolution from BMS to DES, from thick polymeric coatings to thin coatings and from durable polymers to polymer free DES. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, though the medical industry promptly accepted BMS as the best treatment option for cardiovascular diseases; however, DES has provided even better results than BMS. In DES, the first and second generation has ruled the technology for many years and are still on the shelves. Still, the issues aroused due to durable polymer shifted the attention towards biodegradable drug eluting stents, the third generation growing rapidly. But the scientific community has not restricted themselves and is investigating bioresorbable stents that completely eliminate the polymer intervention in drug eluting stent technology.
Authors: Marlies M Kok; Paolo Zocca; Rosaly A Buiten; Peter W Danse; Carl E Schotborgh; Martijn Scholte; Marc Hartmann; Martin G Stoel; Gert van Houwelingen; Gerard C M Linssen; Carine J M Doggen; Clemens von Birgelen Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: M P Savage; D L Fischman; R Rake; M B Leon; R A Schatz; I Penn; M Nobuyoshi; J Moses; J Hirshfeld; R Heuser; D Baim; M Cleman; J Brinker; S Gebhardt; S Goldberg Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: A Kastrati; J Mehilli; J Dirschinger; F Dotzer; H Schühlen; F J Neumann; M Fleckenstein; C Pfafferott; M Seyfarth; A Schömig Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-06-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas Pilgrim; Dik Heg; Marco Roffi; David Tüller; Olivier Muller; André Vuilliomenet; Stéphane Cook; Daniel Weilenmann; Christoph Kaiser; Peiman Jamshidi; Therese Fahrni; Aris Moschovitis; Stéphane Noble; Franz R Eberli; Peter Wenaweser; Peter Jüni; Stephan Windecker Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Inder M Singh; Steven J Filby; Fredy El Sakr; Eiran Z Gorodeski; A Michael Lincoff; Stephen G Ellis; Mehdi H Shishehbor Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Roberto Diletti; Patrick W Serruys; Vasim Farooq; Krishnankutty Sudhir; Cecile Dorange; Karine Miquel-Hebert; Susan Veldhof; Richard Rapoza; Yoshinobu Onuma; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Bernard Chevalier Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Mark Boden; Robert Richard; Marlene C Schwarz; Steve Kangas; Barbara Huibregtse; James J Barry Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.896