VarcoeRLThomasSDLennoxAF.Three-year results of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in infrapopliteal arteries. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25:694–701.
2.
AliZASerruysPWKimuraTet al. 2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy. Lancet. 2017;390:760–772.
3.
OnumaYSotomiYShiomiHet al. Two-year clinical, angiographic, and serial optical coherence tomographic follow-up after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent: insights from the randomised ABSORB Japan trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:1090–1101.
4.
VarcoeRLThomasSDRapozaRJet al. Lessons learned regarding handling and deployment of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold in infrapopliteal arteries. J Endovasc Ther. 2017:24;337–341.
5.
StoneGWAbizaidAOnumaYet al. Effect of technique on outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: analysis from the ABSORB trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2863–2874.
6.
KimuraTKozumaKTanabeKet al. A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs.everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3332–3342.
7.
StoneGWGaoRKimuraTet al. 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:1277–1289.
8.
KereiakesDJEllisSGPopmaJJet al. Evaluation of a fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: design of and rationale for the ABSORB III randomized trial. Am Heart J. 2015;170:641–651.e3.
9.
WykrzykowskaJJKraakRPHofmaSHet al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2319–2328.
10.
BangaloreSBezerraHGRizikDGet al. The state of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold: consensus from an expert panel. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2349–2359.
11.
GoriTWeissnerMGönnerSet al. Characteristics, predictors, and mechanisms of thrombosis in coronary bioresorbable scaffolds: differences between early and late events. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2363–2371.
12.
SotomiYSuwannasomPSerruysPWet al. Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging. EuroIntervention. 2017;12:1747–1756.
13.
PacheJKastratiAMehilliJet al. Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (ISAR-STEREO-2) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1283–1288.
14.
KolandaiveluKSwaminathanRGibsonWJet al. Stent thrombogenicity early in high risk interventional settings is driven by stent design and deployment, and protected by polymer-drug coatings. Circulation. 2011;123:1400–1409.
15.
SotomiYOnumaYColletCet al. Bioresorbable scaffold: the emerging reality and future directions. Circ Res. 2017;120:1341–1352.
16.
MustaphaJADiaz-SandovalLJSaabF.Infrapopliteal calcification patterns in critical limb ischemia: diagnostic, pathologic and therapeutic implications in the search for the endovascular holy grail. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58:383–401.
17.
DruekeTB.Arterial intima and media calcification: distinct entities with different pathogenesis or all the same?Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:1583–1584.
18.
RäberLMagroMStefaniniGGet al. Very late coronary stent thrombosis of a newer generation everolimus-eluting stent compared with early generation drug-eluting stents: a prospective cohort study. Circulation. 2012;125:1110–1125.
19.
TadaTByrneRASimunovicIet al. Risk of stent thrombosis among bare-metal stents, first-generation drug-eluting stents, and second-generation drug-eluting stents: results from a registry of 18,334 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:1267–1274.
20.
StoneGWWitzenbichlerBWeiszGet al. Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study. Lancet. 2013;382:614–623.
21.
KatsanosKKitrouPSpiliopoulosSet al. Comparative effectiveness of plain balloon angioplasty, bare metal stents, drug-coated balloons, and drug-eluting stents for the treatment of infrapopliteal artery disease: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Endovasc Ther. 2016;23:851–863.
22.
JaffMRCahillKEAndrewPYet al. Clinical outcomes and medical care costs among Medicare beneficiaries receiving therapy for peripheral arterial disease. Ann Vasc Surg. 2010;24:577–587.
23.
RyanJLinde-ZwirbleWEngelhartLet al. Temporal changes in coronary revascularization procedures, outcomes, and costs in the bare-metal stent and drug-eluting stent eras: results from the US Medicare program. Circulation. 2009;119:952–961.
24.
ArmstrongDGCohenKCourricSet al. Diabetic foot ulcers and vascular insufficiency: our population has changed, but our methods have not. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:1591–1595.
