Percutaneous coronary interventions will never become obsolete, as evolution is inherent to interventional cardiology. Current drug-eluting platforms have appreciably improved their safety and efficacy profiles in different clinical settings compared to first-generation devices such that it is difficult to consider other alternatives. However, there is definite biological plausibility to consider devices with bioabsorbable polymers and/or scaffolds. It is also an undeniable fact that many patients, based on variety of belief systems, would prefer not to have a permanently implanted device. BP DES with or without bioresorbable scaffolds offer advantages over durable polymer DES in restoring normal coronary physiology and vascular adaptive responses, resulting in late lumen gain and plaque regression. They will likely allow flexibility in treating complex CAD. However, so far, we have been able to prove non-inferiority in a selected population of patients without long-term data. Is "as good as" good enough? Are we ready to reach for the BRS or a BP DES in our catheterization laboratory based on preclinical and mechanistic data (endothelialization, OCT imaging, vasomotion) with limited human experience? I am not. While I will maximize my efforts to recruit patients in related randomized controlled trials, the technology is not ready for prime time. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether any or all of these devices improve long-term outcome compared to best in class DP DES. Most definitive evidence is likely about a decade away. Until then, we can learn to be disciplined implanters not only in selecting the appropriate patient but also in perfecting implantation techniques.
Keywords: Angioplasty; Bare metal stent; Bioabsorbable polymer; Bioresorbable scaffold; Drug-eluting stent; Stent thrombosis.