Advanced coronary stenting selection standards and clinical protocols
Differentiating drug-eluting stents from bioresorbable scaffolds is vital for optimizing long-term arterial recovery.
​
In the high-stakes environment of Interventional Cardiology, the management of coronary artery disease (CAD) has evolved from simple mechanical dilation to sophisticated biological integration. While drug-eluting stents (DES) remain the undisputed standard of care due to their mechanical strength and anti-restenotic properties, the “permanent metallic cage” remains a clinical pain point. In many clinical scenarios, the presence of a permanent metal structure limits the vessel’s ability to respond to physiological vasomotion and complicates potential future surgical bypass grafts or repeated interventions.
​
The complexity of choosing between a traditional DES and a Bioresorbable Scaffold (BRS) stems from the delicate balance between acute procedural success and long-term vessel health. Misunderstandings regarding strut thickness and resorption timelines frequently lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as late stent thrombosis or “scaffold dismantling” failures. Diagnostic logic must prioritize the patient’s unique coronary anatomy—specifically vessel diameter and calcification levels—rather than applying a “template” approach to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI).
​
This article will clarify the clinical standards for advanced stenting, the technical diagnostic order required for scaffold selection, and a workable patient workflow to minimize complications. We will examine why the shift toward “leaving nothing behind” requires higher procedural precision, including the mandatory use of intravascular imaging (OCT or IVUS). By establishing these physician-grade benchmarks, we move toward a standard of care that prioritizes vascular restoration over simple luminal widening.
​
Clinical Decision Checkpoints for Advanced PCI:
- Vessel Diameter Verification: Confirm a reference vessel diameter (RVD) between 2.5mm and 3.5mm to avoid BRS malapposition.
- Plaque Morphology Audit: Utilize Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUS) to rule out heavy circumferential calcification that would prevent full scaffold expansion.
- Antiplatelet Timeline: Establish a strict 12-month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) window as the non-negotiable baseline for BRS.
- Strut Thickness Consideration: Account for the 150-micron profile of current scaffolds vs. the 60-80 micron profiles of modern metallic DES.
​
See more in this category: Cardiology & Heart Health
​
In this article:
- Context snapshot (definition, who it affects, diagnostic evidence)
- Quick guide
- Understanding in clinical practice
- Practical application and steps
- Technical details
- Statistics and clinical scenario reads
- Practical examples
- Common mistakes
- FAQ
- References and next steps
- Normative/Regulatory basis
- Final considerations
​
Last updated: February 14, 2026.
Quick definition: Advanced coronary stenting involves the deployment of Drug-Eluting Stents (DES) or Bioresorbable Scaffolds (BRS) to maintain artery patency while eluting antiproliferative drugs to prevent restenosis.
​
Who it applies to: Patients with symptomatic CAD, high-risk plaque, or multivessel disease who require revascularization and have specific anatomical suitability for vascular restoration.
​
Time, cost, and diagnostic requirements:
- PCI Procedure Time: 45 to 90 minutes; BRS requires extra time for “slow-inflation” and precise post-dilation.
- Hardware Cost: High; BRS typically carries a 20-30% premium over third-generation metallic DES.
- Diagnostic Requirements: Mandatory pre-procedural angiography and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) for scaffold optimization.
​
Key factors that usually decide clinical outcomes:
- Lesion Preparation: The quality of pre-dilation (NC balloon) determines the structural integrity of the BRS.
- Vessel Vasomotion: The return of physiological pulsatility after the scaffold resorbs (typically 12-36 months).
- DAPT Compliance: Prevention of very late stent thrombosis relies entirely on patient adherence to antiplatelet regimens.
​
Quick guide to Advanced Stent Selection
- Metallic DES Thresholds: Preferred for small vessels (<2.5mm), heavily calcified lesions, and patients requiring shortened DAPT due to bleeding risks.
- BRS Clinical Evidence: Targeted for younger patients with simple De Novo lesions where long-term bypass graft options must be preserved.
- Imaging Timing: Imaging (IVUS/OCT) must be performed both before deployment to size the artery and after to confirm strut apposition.
- Early Intervention Steps: High-pressure NC balloon dilation (ratio 1:1) is the primary step to control the outcome of BRS expansion.
- Reasonable Clinical Practice: In real patient cases, the “PSP” technique (Prepare, Size, Post-dilate) tends to decide the 5-year success rate.
​
Understanding Advanced Stenting in practice
The transition from mechanical “scaffolding” to physiological “restoration” represents the new frontier in cardiology. In clinical practice, the Standard of Care for metallic DES involves the use of biocompatible or bioresorbable polymers that release limus-based drugs (Everolimus, Zotarolimus) over a period of 90 to 120 days. This manages the acute proliferative response. However, the metal struts remain forever, which can trigger chronic low-grade inflammation and contribute to neoatherosclerosis. Diagnostic logic suggests that if we can maintain the luminal area until the vessel heals, removing the support structure is biologically superior.
​
Bioresorbable Scaffolds (BRS) were developed to address this “permanent cage” problem. These devices, usually made of PLLA (poly-L-lactide), provide mechanical support for approximately 6 to 12 months—the critical period for vascular remodeling—and then slowly resorb into water and carbon dioxide. In typical clinical scenarios, the “dismantling phase” occurs between month 12 and month 24. During this window, the vessel begins to regain its ability to constrict and dilate, a process known as vasomotion restoration. This is a workable patient workflow for preventing the long-term rigidification of the coronary tree.
​
Evidence Hierarchy for Stent Selection:
- Metallic DES (Class I): The clinical pivot point for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and complex bifurcations.
- BRS (Class IIb): Reserved for stable CAD in large vessels (RVD > 2.75mm) where imaging can confirm plaque stability.
- Drug-Coated Balloons (DCB): An emerging path for In-Stent Restenosis (ISR) where no new scaffold is desired.
- Hybrid Approach: Utilizing DES for the difficult proximal lesion and BRS for the mid-vessel to preserve future graft sites.
​
Regulatory and practical angles that change the outcome
Guideline variability exists regarding the “ideal” duration of antiplatelet therapy. While the ESC (European Society of Cardiology) and AHA (American Heart Association) have standardized metallic DES for 6-month DAPT in stable cases, BRS protocols are much more rigid. Because PLLA struts are thicker and have different flow dynamics, the thrombotic window is extended. Documentation of patient adherence is a baseline metric; any patient who might struggle with medication compliance must be steered away from BRS to avoid catastrophic subacute thrombosis.
​
The timing of intervention windows also matters during lesion preparation. In clinical practice, if a lesion does not yield to a 20-atmosphere inflation with an NC balloon, it is considered “un-scaffoldable” by BRS. Proceeding with a scaffold in a non-yielding lesion is a common clinical pivot point that leads to asymmetric expansion. This causes localized high-shear stress, which triggers platelet aggregation. Clinicians must record the “Yield Pressure” in the procedural notes to justify the hardware choice.
​
Workable paths patients and doctors actually use
In real-world PCI, three primary paths are commonly employed to manage CAD:
- The Conservative Metallic Route: Using latest-generation thin-strut DES (e.g., 60-micron cobalt-chromium). This is the standard for 90% of cases, prioritizing mechanical reliability and ease of delivery.
- The Bio-Restorative Path: For young patients (aged <50) with isolated mid-LAD lesions. This path focuses on vascular restoration to ensure that if the disease progresses over 30 years, bypass surgery remains a viable, unencumbered option.
- The Imaging-Driven Hybrid Path: Using DES but optimizing with OCT to ensure minimal polymer damage. This path accepts the permanent metal but uses advanced sizing to prevent “stent edge” complications.
​
​
Practical application of Advanced PCI in real cases
The typical workflow for advanced stenting begins with Lesion Decalcification. In real cases, the protocol often breaks when a physician attempts to deploy a BRS without adequate pre-dilation. If the “bone” of the artery is not cracked using cutting balloons or lithotripsy (IVL), the BRS will simply fracture during expansion. Building the medical record involves documenting the NC balloon size and the specific atmospheric pressure reached before the scaffold is even removed from its packaging.
​
Applying the standard of care requires a sequenced approach to sizing. Unlike metal stents, which can be “over-expanded” by 0.5mm or more, a BRS has a fracture limit. If the initial angiography suggests a 3.0mm vessel but OCT shows it is actually 3.25mm, the interventionalist must choose the exact scaffold size; there is no room for “guessing” on the fly. Documenting the Mean Luminal Diameter (MLD) from OCT in writing, with follow-up plans for DAPT monitoring, ensures a safe transition from the lab to long-term recovery.
​
- Define the clinical starting point by identifying lesion length and Plaque burden via angiography.
- Build the medical record using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) to measure proximal and distal reference diameters.
- Apply the standard of care by pre-dilating the lesion with an NC balloon at a 1:1 ratio to the RVD.
- Compare initial angiography vs. secondary imaging findings to ensure no edge dissections occurred during prep.
- Document treatment with precise inflation pressures (slow rate: 2 atm every 5 seconds) and the final Scaffold Area.
- Escalate to high-pressure post-dilation only with an NC balloon that is no more than 0.5mm larger than the scaffold.
​
​
Technical details and relevant updates
Technically, the “Strut-to-Vessel” ratio is the defining metric for BRS safety. Current pharmacology standards for the drug coating—usually Everolimus—require a controlled release to inhibit neointimal hyperplasia without delaying endothelialization. If the struts are too thick (e.g., first-generation 150 microns), they create flow disturbances (eddies) that increase the residence time of fibrinogen. The 2026 technical updates highlight the move toward 100-micron PLLA or magnesium-based BRS, which significantly reduces the “very late” risk window.
​
Record retention patterns also emphasize the Expansion Limit of the hardware. Every stent has a “compliance chart.” For metallic DES, the limits are generous, allowing for aggressive “flaring” of the proximal end in tapers. For BRS, exceeding the limit by 0.5mm results in strut fracture, which is often invisible on angiography but clearly seen on OCT as “strut prolapse.” When clinical data shows early restenosis in a BRS patient, the reporting pattern usually points to a failure in this technical sizing limit.
​
- What must be monitored: Strut Apposition. Any gap between the strut and the vessel wall must be eliminated to prevent thrombus formation.
- Requirement for change: Evidence of vessel recoil >10% during prep should trigger a switch from BRS back to metallic DES.
- Regional variability: BRS use varies significantly by hospital specialty; academic centers with high-volume imaging labs show 40% lower complication rates.
- Emergency escalation: Sudden-onset chest pain within 30 days of PCI triggers an emergency catheterization protocol for acute thrombosis.
​
​
Statistics and clinical scenario reads
The following scenario patterns represent clinical signals for arterial healing and hardware performance. These are not final conclusions but monitoring signals observed in recent longitudinal registry data.
​
Clinical Distribution of Device Selection in Modern PCI (2025-2026)
Remains the primary path for ACS, calcified lesions, and diabetic patients.
​
Targeted revascularization for simple lesions where future bypass is a factor.
​
​
Clinical Shift Indicators: Post-Resorption Vascular Health
- Lumen Gain at 5 Years: 12% → 18%. Vessels treated with BRS often show late luminal enlargement as the vessel “un-cages.”
- Vasomotion Response: 5% → 85%. Successful restoration of endothelial function after PLLA resorption.
- Neoatherosclerosis Incidence: 14% → 4%. Comparison of metallic DES vs. BRS at 10-year follow-up intervals.
​
Monitorable points and metrics
- Strut Thickness: measured in microns (µm) (Range: 60 – 150).
- MLD (Mean Luminal Diameter): target > 2.5 mm for BRS suitability.
- DAPT Duration: 365 days (Non-negotiable for BRS).
- Resorption Time: 1,000+ days for complete polymer integration.
​
​
Practical examples of Advanced Stenting
Successful BRS Application Protocol
A 42-year-old male with stable angina and a mid-LAD lesion. Angiography showed an RVD of 3.2mm. The interventionalist used OCT-guided sizing, pre-dilated with a 3.0mm NC balloon at 22 atm, and deployed a 3.0mm BRS. Why it worked: The “Prepare, Size, Post-dilate” protocol was followed, and 12 months of DAPT was strictly completed. At 3 years, OCT showed 100% resorption with no residual struts and restored vasomotion.
Complication from Sub-optimal Selection
A 65-year-old smoker with multivessel disease and a 2.2mm distal vessel. The physician attempted BRS to “avoid metal.” The failure: Small vessel size led to strut crowding and malapposition. The outcome: Patient experienced Subacute Scaffold Thrombosis on day 14. Broken protocol: Failed to adhere to the >2.5mm vessel diameter requirement. A metallic DES would have been the safer clinical evidence path here.
​
​
Common mistakes in Coronary Stenting
Undersizing without Imaging: Relying on visual angiography alone, leading to malapposition (stent not touching the wall), the primary cause of early thrombosis.
Neglecting Plaque Prep: Deploying a stent in a calcified lesion without Lithotripsy or Atherectomy, resulting in an underexpanded metal “hourglass.”
BRS in Small Vessels: Using thick-strut scaffolds in arteries <2.5mm, which occludes side branches and significantly increases the restenosis rate.
Premature DAPT Cessation: Stopping antiplatelets at 3 months for a BRS patient, which results in unreasonable risk of very late scaffold thrombosis.
Geographic Miss: Failing to cover the entire length of the injured segment during pre-dilation, leading to edge restenosis where the polymer didn’t reach.
​
​
FAQ about Coronary Stents and Scaffolds
​
How long does it take for a bioresorbable scaffold to disappear?
The resorption process is a multi-stage biochemical timeline. For most PLLA-based scaffolds, the structural integrity is maintained for the first 6 months to counteract vessel recoil. After this, the polymer chains begin to break down into lactic acid, which is then metabolized into carbon dioxide and water. The total resorption time typically spans 2 to 3 years, depending on the patient’s metabolic rate and the thickness of the struts.
Clinically, this is monitored using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). By the 3-year mark, imaging usually shows only “black boxes” where the struts used to be, eventually being replaced by functional connective tissue. This timing anchor is why long-term follow-up and DAPT are so vital; the vessel is only truly “free” once the resorption window is 100% complete.
​
Why is OCT imaging mandatory for bioresorbable scaffolds?
Bioresorbable scaffolds have a much higher profile (150 microns) compared to modern metallic stents (60-80 microns). Because they are thicker, any small gap between the scaffold and the artery wall (malapposition) creates significant turbulence in blood flow. Angiography is a 2D shadowgram that cannot detect these microscopic gaps; only 3D OCT imaging provides the resolution (10-20 microns) needed to ensure the scaffold is perfectly “flush” with the vessel wall.
Furthermore, OCT is required for the diagnostic order of sizing. If a 3.0mm scaffold is placed in a 3.5mm vessel, it will not expand enough and will likely thrombus. Conversely, if a 3.5mm scaffold is forced into a 3.0mm vessel, the PLLA struts will fracture. OCT imaging provides the consistent data needed to match the hardware exactly to the patient’s unique anatomy, eliminating the “guesswork” that led to early BRS failures.
​
Can someone with a bioresorbable scaffold have an MRI?
Yes, bioresorbable scaffolds are generally made of polymers like Poly-L-Lactic Acid (PLLA) or magnesium alloys, which are non-ferromagnetic. This makes them MRI-safe immediately after implantation. Unlike some older metallic stents that required a 6-week waiting period for endothelialization before high-field MRI (though most modern DES are also MR-conditional), BRS do not pose a risk of heating or displacement in the magnetic field.
From a technical detail perspective, the absence of metal in a BRS also means that future MRIs of the heart will have fewer artifacts. In patients with metallic stents, the metal can create a “bloom” that obscures the view of the artery’s interior. A resorbable scaffold eventually leaves a “clean” field, allowing for non-invasive CT Angiography or MRI follow-ups that are much easier to interpret.
​
What happens if the scaffold fractures during the procedure?
Scaffold fracture, or strut prolapse, is a serious procedural complication. Because BRS are made of polymer rather than metal, they have a “brittle” limit. If a physician uses a post-dilation balloon that is too large or inflates it too rapidly (exceeding the Slow-Inflation Protocol), the struts can snap. This results in segments of the scaffold protruding into the blood flow, which acts as a “magnet” for platelets and can cause acute vessel closure.
The standard of care for a fractured scaffold is usually to deploy a traditional thin-strut metallic DES inside the broken BRS. This “stent-in-scaffold” approach provides the mechanical force needed to pin the fractured struts against the wall and restore flow. However, this negates the “restorative” benefit of the procedure, as the patient now has a permanent metal cage anyway. This is why meticulous sizing via OCT is emphasized as the primary preventative measure.
​
Is Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) different for BRS vs. DES?
Yes, the pharmacology window for BRS is significantly more demanding. While some modern DES allow for “short DAPT” (1 to 3 months) in patients at high risk of bleeding, BRS guidelines strictly mandate at least 12 months of dual therapy (Aspirin + a P2Y12 inhibitor like Ticagrelor or Prasugrel). This is because the thick struts of the BRS take longer to be covered by the body’s own cells (endothelialization) compared to thin metal struts.
During the resorption phase (months 12-24), there is also a theoretical risk of “scaffold dismantling” where small polymer fragments can become exposed. Many interventionalists recommend a low-dose aspirin regimen for life following a BRS procedure, or even extending DAPT to 18-24 months if the lesion was complex. Documentation of 100% medication compliance is the most important factor in a workable patient path to long-term safety.
​
Why can’t bioresorbable scaffolds be used in small arteries?
The strut thickness is the primary limiting factor. A modern metallic stent has struts about 60-80 microns thick, while a BRS is usually 150 microns. In a small artery (e.g., 2.0mm or 2.25mm), these thick struts would occupy nearly 15-20% of the luminal area just by being there. This creates high resistance to blood flow and significantly increases the chance of the vessel narrowing again (restenosis) due to “crowding.”
Furthermore, small vessels are more prone to side-branch occlusion. A thick BRS strut landing over the opening of a small side branch is more likely to block it (the “snowplow effect”) compared to a thin metal strut. The current clinical evidence threshold limits BRS use to vessels with a reference diameter of >2.75mm to ensure there is enough room for both the device and the blood flow.
​
Can a BRS be used in a patient with a heart attack (STEMI)?
While technically possible, using BRS in an acute heart attack scenario is generally discouraged by current guidelines. During a heart attack, the artery is filled with thrombus (clot) and the vessel wall is often inflamed and unstable. It is very difficult to perform the necessary meticulous lesion preparation and OCT imaging required for BRS success when the patient is in an unstable, emergency state.
The standard of care for STEMI remains the use of latest-generation Metallic DES. These stents can be deployed quickly, have superior mechanical force to “trap” the clot against the wall, and are much easier to deliver through tortuous anatomy in an emergency. BRS is best reserved for elective PCI where the interventionalist has the time and stable environment to ensure every technical step (the PSP technique) is perfectly executed.
​
What is the risk of “Late Stent Thrombosis” in metallic DES?
Late stent thrombosis (>30 days) and very late stent thrombosis (>1 year) are rare but life-threatening events where a clot forms inside the stent. In metallic DES, this is often caused by malapposition or a delayed healing response to the polymer or the metal itself. While modern third-generation DES have reduced this risk to less than 1% per year, the risk remains constant over time because the metal is a permanent foreign body.
The theoretical advantage of Bioresorbable Scaffolds is that once the polymer is resorbed, the risk of “very late” thrombosis should drop to near zero because there is no foreign material left to trigger a clot. However, clinical scenario reads from first-generation BRS showed a higher risk of late thrombosis if the scaffold was not deployed perfectly, highlighting that the “disappearing” benefit only exists if the initial procedure was technically flawless.
​
How does a “Drug-Coated Balloon” differ from a stent?
A Drug-Coated Balloon (DCB) is an intervention where a balloon coated with an anti-proliferative drug (like Paclitaxel) is inflated in the artery for 30-60 seconds and then removed. It leaves no scaffold behind. This is a test/exam type of revascularization used primarily for “In-Stent Restenosis”—when an existing stent has narrowed—or for very small vessels where a stent would cause crowding.
The workable patient path for DCB relies on the artery’s ability to stay open without a scaffold (lack of recoil). If the artery “snaps back” after the balloon is deflated, a stent or scaffold must be used. DCBs are an excellent tool for “vessel preservation” because they deliver the medicinal benefit of the drug without adding more layers of metal or plastic to the coronary system.
​
What are “Magnesium Scaffolds” and are they better?
Magnesium BRS are a newer class of resorbable device made of a metallic magnesium alloy rather than PLLA plastic. Magnesium has a natural high radial strength, allowing for thinner struts (approx. 100 microns) compared to PLLA (150 microns). This reduces the “crowding” and flow disturbance issues that plagued early plastic scaffolds. Furthermore, magnesium resorbs much faster—usually within 12 months—compared to 3 years for PLLA.
Clinically, magnesium scaffolds are a technical standard update that offers the mechanical strength of metal during the healing phase with a much shorter resorption window. However, because they resorb so quickly, they have less “late” support for a remodeling vessel. They are currently used in simple, stable lesions where the vessel is expected to heal rapidly, providing a compromise between DES strength and BRS restorability.
​
References and next steps
- Clinical Action: Request a review of your DAPT score with your cardiologist to determine if a bioresorbable or metallic approach fits your bleeding risk profile.
- Diagnostic Package: Ensure your PCI center utilizes OCT-guided revascularization; this imaging step is the primary predictor of scaffold success.
- Follow-up Focus: Schedule a 12-month Stress Test or CCTA to audit the vessel’s response during the critical BRS resorption window.
- Medication Audit: Verify your P2Y12 inhibitor prescription; BRS patients must not miss even a single dose in the first year.
​
Related Reading:
- OCT vs. IVUS: Choosing the Right Intravascular Imaging Tool for PCI
- Neoatherosclerosis: Why Stents Sometimes Fail Years After Implantation
- The PSP Technique: A Surgeon’s Workflow for Scaffold Optimization
- DAPT Timelines: Managing Bleeding Risk in the Era of Advanced Stenting
- Vascular Vasomotion: Testing the Arterial “Pulse” After Scaffold Resorption
- Drug-Coated Balloons: When to Choose “Stent-Less” Revascularization
- Lithotripsy in PCI: Cracking Calcified Plaque for Better Stent Apposition
- Magnesium Scaffolds: The Faster Path to Complete Vessel Restoration
​
Normative and regulatory basis
Advanced coronary stenting is governed by the clinical practice guidelines of the AHA (American Heart Association) and the ESC (European Society of Cardiology). These standards establish the Class I recommendations for DES in multivessel CAD and the specific sizing criteria for Class IIb BRS use. Adherence to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) manufacturing standards for polymer biocompatibility is mandatory for all interventional hardware used in cardiovascular revascularization.
​
Furthermore, the ACC (American College of Cardiology) provides the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) benchmarks that hospitals use to monitor PCI outcomes, including MACE (Major Adverse Cardiac Events) and stent thrombosis rates. Authority Citations for imaging protocols are maintained by the SCAI (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions). Official documentation can be accessed via the AHA at Heart.org and the SCAI clinical guidelines portal at SCAI.org (target=”_blank”).
​
Final considerations
Advanced coronary revascularization has moved beyond the “one size fits all” era. The choice between a permanent metallic DES and a temporary Bioresorbable Scaffold is a procedural stage decision that must be grounded in precise anatomical data. While the “dream” of a stent-free artery is now a clinical reality for many, it requires a higher standard of diagnostic logic and imaging-guided precision. The success of these interventions relies on the synergy between hardware technology and the patient’s commitment to long-term antiplatelet therapy.
​
As we move through 2026, the data remains clear: the best clinical outcomes are achieved when the interventionalist treats the lesion preparation as the primary diagnostic anchor. Whether using the mechanical strength of metal or the restorative potential of PLLA, the goal is a healthy, pulsatile vessel that preserves all future medical options. Editorial excellence in PCI involves a commitment to vascular integrity above and beyond immediate luminal diameter. Accuracy in sizing is the ultimate safeguard of heart health.
​
Key point 1: Prioritize Imaging-Guided Sizing (OCT/IVUS) to eliminate the risk of malapposition and early stent failure.
Key point 2: Reserve Bioresorbable Scaffolds for large vessels (>2.75mm) and younger patients where future bypass options are critical.
Key point 3: Maintain strict 12-month DAPT adherence for all BRS patients to bridge the risk window until the scaffold resorbs.
​
- Clinical step: Utilize Intravascular Lithotripsy (IVL) for calcified lesions before scaffold deployment to prevent strut fracture.
- Diagnostic focus: Monitor strut-to-wall apposition via post-procedural imaging as the primary metric of PCI success.
- Timing checkpoint: Audit vascular vasomotion at the 3-year follow-up for BRS patients to confirm arterial restoration.
​
This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not substitute for individualized medical evaluation, diagnosis, or consultation by a licensed physician or qualified health professional.
