REFERENCES
1. Song P, Fang Z, Wang H, et al. Global and regional prevalence, burden, and risk factors for carotid atherosclerosis: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and modelling study. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8:e721-9.
2. Lovell M, Harris K, Forbes T, et al.; Peripheral Arterial Disease Coalition. Peripheral arterial disease: lack of awareness in Canada. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25:39-45.
3. Criqui MH, Matsushita K, Aboyans V, et al.; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; and Stroke Council. Lower extremity peripheral artery disease: contemporary epidemiology, management gaps, and future directions: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2021;144:e171-91.
4. Johnston LE, Stewart BT, Yangni-Angate H, et al. Peripheral arterial disease in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:564-72.
6. Salameh MJ, Rundek T, Boden-Albala B, et al. Self-reported peripheral arterial disease predicts future vascular events in a community-based cohort. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:1423-8.
7. Pérez Mejias EL, Faxas SM, Taveras NT, et al. Peripheral artery disease as a risk factor for myocardial infarction. Cureus. 2021;13:e15655.
8. McDermott MM. Functional impairment in peripheral artery disease and how to improve it in 2013. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2013;15:347.
9. Normahani P, Mustafa C, Shalhoub J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests used to establish the presence of peripheral arterial disease in people with diabetes. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:1811-20.
11. Hwang JH, Hwang JH, Lee SY, Lee J. Prostatic abscess caused by klebsiella pneumoniae: a 6-year single-center study. J Clin Med. 2022;11.
12. Erzinger FL, Polimanti AC, Pinto DM, et al. Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery guidelines on peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Bras. 2024;23:e20230059.
13. Törngren K, Eriksson S, Arvidsson J, et al. A reperfusion BOLD-MRI Tissue perfusion protocol reliably differentiate patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease from healthy controls. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3643.
14. Xu J, Chung JJ, Jin T. Chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging of creatine, phosphocreatine, and protein arginine residue in tissues. NMR Biomed. 2023;36:e4671.
15. Sporkin HL, Patel TR, Betz Y, et al. Chemical exchange saturation transfer magnetic resonance imaging identifies abnormal calf muscle-specific energetics in peripheral artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022;15:e013869.
16. Conte MS, Pomposelli FB, Clair DG, et al.; Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Guidelines Writing Group, Society for Vascular Surgery. Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines for atherosclerotic occlusive disease of the lower extremities: management of asymptomatic disease and claudication. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61 Suppl:2S-41S.
17. Kim TI, Zhang Y, Cardella JA, Guzman RJ, Ochoa Chaar CI. Outcomes of bypass and endovascular interventions for advanced femoropopliteal disease in patients with premature peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Surg. 2021;74:1968-1977.e3.
18. Zhou Y, Zhang Z, Lin S, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment modalities for femoropopliteal artery lesions: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43:204-14.
19. Brodmann M, Wissgott C, Holden A, et al. Treatment of infrapopliteal post-PTA dissection with tack implants: 12-month results from the TOBA-BTK study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92:96-105.
20. Laird JR. Limitations of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for the treatment of disease of the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. J Endovasc Ther. 2006;13 Suppl 2:II30-40.
21. Meraj PM, Jauhar R, Singh A. Bare metal stents versus drug eluting stents: where do we stand in 2015? Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2015;17:393.
22. Clare J, Ganly J, Bursill CA, Sumer H, Kingshott P, de Haan JB. The mechanisms of restenosis and relevance to next generation stent design. Biomolecules. 2022;12:430.
23. Dinc R. A review of the current state in neointimal hyperplasia development following endovascular intervention and minor emphasis on new horizons in immunotherapy. Transl Clin Pharmacol. 2023;31:191-201.
24. Lepor NE. Primary prevention, treatment, and secondary prevention of late and very late stent thrombosis. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2007;8 Suppl 1:S27-33.
25. Liu J, Li T, Huang W, et al. Drug-coated balloons used in peripheral artery disease: experience from a single center. J Int Med Res. 2020;48:300060520940157.
26. Cui HJ, Wu YF. The efficacy of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in infrapopliteal revascularization: a meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2025;32:1799-820.
27. Tataru DA, Lazar FL, Onea HL, et al. Benefits and challenges of drug-coated balloons in peripheral artery disease: from molecular mechanisms to clinical practice. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25:8749.
28. Ogata K, Nishihira K, Asano Y, et al. Clinical comparison of drug-coated balloon and drug-eluting stent for femoropopliteal lesions in chronic limb-threatening ischemia with wounds. Circ J. 2024;88:1647-55.
29. Chang GH, Azar DA, Lyle C, Chitalia VC, Shazly T, Kolachalama VB. Intrinsic coating morphology modulates acute drug transfer in drug-coated balloon therapy. Sci Rep. 2019;9:6839.
30. Stratakos E, Antonini L, Poletti G, et al. Investigating balloon-vessel contact pressure patterns in angioplasty: in silico insights for drug-coated balloons. Ann Biomed Eng. 2023;51:2908-22.
31. Bonaventura K, Schwefer M, Yusof AKM, et al. Systematic scoring balloon lesion preparation for drug-coated balloon angioplasty in clinical routine: results of the PASSWORD observational study. Adv Ther. 2020;37:2210-23.
32. Giannopoulos S, Ghanian S, Parikh SA, Secemsky EA, Schneider PA, Armstrong EJ. Safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27:647-57.
33. Zilinyi RS, Alsaloum M, Snyder DJ, et al. Surgical and endovascular therapies for below-the-knee peripheral arterial disease: a contemporary review. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024;3:101268.
34. Iqbal J, Onuma Y, Ormiston J, Abizaid A, Waksman R, Serruys P. Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:765-76.
35. Kazuki Y, Kobayashi K, Hirabayashi M, et al. Humanized UGT2 and CYP3A transchromosomic rats for improved prediction of human drug metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:3072-81.
36. Jinnouchi H, Virmani R, Finn AV. Long-term vasomotion after absorb: fact or fiction? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1572-5.
37. Shen Y, Yu X, Cui J, et al. Development of biodegradable polymeric stents for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Biomolecules. 2022;12:1245.
38. Hu T, Yang C, Lin S, Yu Q, Wang G. Biodegradable stents for coronary artery disease treatment: Recent advances and future perspectives. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2018;91:163-78.
39. Diletti R, Serruys PW, Farooq V, et al. ABSORB II randomized controlled trial: a clinical evaluation to compare the safety, efficacy, and performance of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold system against the XIENCE everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of subjects with ischemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions: Rationale and study design. Am Heart J. 2012;164:654-63.
40. Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Metzger DC, et al.; ABSORB III Investigators. Clinical outcomes before and after complete everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold resorption: five-year follow-up from the ABSORB III trial. Circulation. 2019;140:1895-903.
41. Tesfamariam B. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: biodegradation, drug delivery and vascular remodeling. Pharmacol Res. 2016;107:163-71.
42. Mostaed E, Sikora-Jasinska M, Drelich JW, Vedani M. Zinc-based alloys for degradable vascular stent applications. Acta Biomater. 2018;71:1-23.
43. Stone GW, Kimura T, Gao R, et al. Time-varying outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold during 5-year follow-up: a systematic meta-analysis and individual patient data pooled study. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4:1261-9.
44. Waksman R. Current state of the absorbable metallic (magnesium) stent. EuroIntervention. 2009;5 Suppl F:F94-7.
45. Barkholt TØ, Webber B, Holm NR, Ormiston JA. Mechanical properties of the drug-eluting bioresorbable magnesium scaffold compared with polymeric scaffolds and a permanent metallic drug-eluting stent. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:E674-82.
46. IBS TitanTM peripheral scaffold. Available from https://www.biotyxmed.com/en_ggjt.html [accessed 3 March 2026].
47. MeRes100TM Brochure. Available from https://storage.e.jimdo.com/file/d4a3bcc8-af71-49d6-bf6f-90cb65f9681c/meres100-bioresorbable-scaffolds-brs-1617184336pdf.pdf [accessed 3 March 2026].
48. Lee JM, Joh HS, Choi KH, et al.; SMART-REWARD Investigators. Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in real-world practice. J Korean Med Sci. 2023;38:e34.
49. Gao Z, Jiang W, Ran F. Peripheral vascular bioresorbable scaffolds: past, present, and future. Medicine Plus. 2024;1:100031.
50. Bosiers MJ, Rand T, Uberoi R, et al. MOTIV bioresorbable scaffold in below-the-knee artery disease: European post-market pilot BTK trial: 36-month results. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2025;48:1576-86.
51. Brodmann M, Falah B, Palena LM, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of a novel thin strut Poly(L-lactide) based bioresorbable vascular scaffold in below knee arterial disease: the RESOLV I first in human study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2025.
52. Seguchi M, Aytekin A, Xhepa E, et al. Vascular response following implantation of the third-generation drug-eluting resorbable coronary magnesium scaffold: an intravascular imaging analysis of the BIOMAG-I first-in-human study. EuroIntervention. 2024;20:e1173-83.
53. Charpentier E, Barna A, Guillevin L, Juliard JM. Fully bioresorbable drug-eluting coronary scaffolds: a review. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;108:385-97.
54. Green MR, Couchman JR. Differences in human skin between the epidermal growth factor receptor distribution detected by EGF binding and monoclonal antibody recognition. J Invest Dermatol. 1985;85:239-45.
55. Pradhan A, Vishwakarma P, Vankar S, Sethi R. “The unpredictable ABSORB” - very late stent thrombosis of bioresorbable vascular scaffold. Heart Views. 2019;20:65-9.
56. Serruys PW, Katagiri Y, Sotomi Y, et al. Arterial remodeling after bioresorbable scaffolds and metallic stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:60-74.
57. Koppula AV, Raja MS, Ahmad M. Can HbA1c levels be used as a prognostic tool for patients undergoing coronary interventions? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:1159.
58. Giacchi G, Ortega-Paz L, Brugaletta S, Ishida K, Sabaté M. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds technology: current use and future developments. Med Devices. 2016;9:185-98.
59. Jiang M, Zhang Y, Han Y, Yuan X, Gao L. Neoatherosclerosis: a distinctive pathological mechanism of stent failure. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024;25:95.
60. Brugaletta S, Heo JH, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Endothelial-dependent vasomotion in a coronary segment treated by ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold system is related to plaque composition at the time of bioresorption of the polymer: indirect finding of vascular reparative therapy? Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1325-33.
61. Gomez-Lara J, Brugaletta S, Ortega-Paz L, et al. Long-term coronary functional assessment of the infarct-related artery treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds or everolimus-eluting metallic stents: insights of the TROFI II trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1559-71.
62. Ortega-Paz L, Capodanno D, Gori T, et al. Predilation, sizing and post-dilation scoring in patients undergoing everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation for prediction of cardiac adverse events: development and internal validation of the PSP score. EuroIntervention. 2017;12:2110-7.
63. Farhan M, Hasan G, Sobhi A, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds advances, challenges, and future directions. Ann Med Surg. 2025;87:4173-83.
64. Cheng Y, Ferrone M, Wang Q, et al. Impact of coronary atherosclerosis on bioresorbable vascular scaffold resorption and vessel wall integration. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2020;5:619-29.
65. El Khoury R, Tzvetanov I, Estrada EA, et al. Drug-eluting, balloon-expandable, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds reduce neointimal thickness and stenosis in an animal model of percutaneous peripheral intervention. JVS Vasc Sci. 2023;4:100114.
66. Vahl TP, Gasior P, Gongora CA, et al. Four-year polymer biocompatibility and vascular healing profile of a novel ultrahigh molecular weight amorphous PLLA bioresorbable vascular scaffold: an OCT study in healthy porcine coronary arteries. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:1510-8.
67. Torii S, Yamamoto A, Yoshikawa A, et al. Degradation of a novel magnesium alloy-based bioresorbable coronary scaffold in a swine coronary artery model. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2024;39:428-37.
68. Kumar S, Malviya R, Sridhar SB. Bioresorbable polymeric scaffold: advancing minimally invasive surgical procedure for cardiovascular and its applications. In: Malviya R, Sundram S, Editors. Sustainable nanocomposites with green biomaterials. Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham; 2025; pp. 61-82.
69. Lipinski MJ, Acampado E, Cheng Q, et al. Comparison of acute thrombogenicity for magnesium versus stainless steel stents in a porcine arteriovenous shunt model. EuroIntervention. 2019;14:1420-7.
70. 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. 2017;10.
71. Warren BE, Tan KT, Rajan DK, et al. Moving away from metal: step toward the future with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and novel antiproliferative agents. JVS Vasc Sci. 2025;6:100277.
72. Kum S, Ipema J, Chun-Yin DH, et al. Early and midterm experience with the absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in Asian patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia: one-year clinical and imaging outcomes from the DISAPEAR registry. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27:616-22.
73. Varcoe RL, Schouten O, Thomas SD, Lennox AF. Experience with the absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in arteries below the knee: 12-month clinical and imaging outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1721-8.
74. Varcoe RL, Parikh SA, DeRubertis BG, et al. Evaluation of an infrapopliteal drug-eluting resorbable scaffold: design methodology for the LIFE-BTK randomized controlled trial. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023;2:100964.
75. R3 Vascular Inc. Bioresorbable Sirolimus-eluting scaffold treatment for below the knee disease (ELITE-BTK). Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06071429 [accessed 3 March 2026].
76. Drug impregnated bioabsorbable stent in asian population extremity arterial revascularization (DISAPEAR Study) (DISAPEAR). Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02043795 [accessed 3 March 2026].
77. LIFE-BTK Randomized Controlled Trial (LIFE-BTK). Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04227899 [accessed 3 March 2026].
78. R3 Vascular Inc. Study of the R3 Vascular Drug-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold in Treating Below the Knee Arterial Disease (RESOLV I). Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04912323 [accessed 3 March 2026].
79. MOTIV BTK randomized controlled trial. Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05406622 [accessed 3 March 2026].
80. Abbott Vascular. The ABSORB bioresorbable scaffold below the knee (BTK) study. Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02793349 [accessed 3 March 2026].
81. Peng X, Qu W, Jia Y, Wang Y, Yu B, Tian J. Bioresorbable scaffolds: contemporary status and future directions. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020;7:589571.
82. Martinelli O, Alunno A, Drudi FM, Malaj A, Irace L. Duplex ultrasound versus CT angiography for the treatment planning of lower-limb arterial disease. J Ultrasound. 2021;24:471-9.
83. Demola P, Meucci F, Stolcova M, Mario CD, Mattesini A. The DESolve® novolimus bioresorbable scaffold. Future Cardiol. 2021;17:945-51.
84. Abizaid A, Kedev S, Ali RBM, et al. Imaging and 2-year clinical outcomes of thin strut sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: the MeRes-1 extend trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98:1102-10.
85. Song L, Xu B, Chen Y, et al.; FUTURE-II Trial Investigators. Thinner strut sirolimus-eluting BRS versus EES in patients with coronary artery disease: FUTURE-II trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:1450-62.
86. Jiménez JM, Davies PF. Hemodynamically driven stent strut design. Ann Biomed Eng. 2009;37:1483-94.
87. van Zandvoort LJC, Dudek D, Weber-Albers J, et al. Intravascular ultrasound findings of the Fantom sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold at six- and nine-month follow-up: the FANTOM II study. EuroIntervention. 2018;14:e1215-23.
88. Fan W, Tan J, Li L, et al. Efficacy and safety of absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in peripheral artery disease: a single-arm meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2023;30:651-63.
89. Beckman JA, Schneider PA, Conte MS. Advances in revascularization for peripheral artery disease: revascularization in PAD. Circ Res. 2021;128:1885-912.
90. Zhao N, Zhu D. Endothelial responses of magnesium and other alloying elements in magnesium-based stent materials. Metallomics. 2015;7:118-28.
91. Saberi A, Bakhsheshi-rad HR, Abazari S, et al. A comprehensive review on surface modifications of biodegradable magnesium-based implant alloy: polymer coatings opportunities and challenges. Coatings. 2021;11:747.
92. Leone A, Simonetti F, Avvedimento M, et al. Ultrathin struts drug-eluting stents: a state-of-the-art review. J Pers Med. 2022;12:1378.
93. Haude M, Wlodarczak A, van der Schaaf RJ, et al. A new resorbable magnesium scaffold for de novo coronary lesions (DREAMS 3): one-year results of the BIOMAG-I first-in-human study. EuroIntervention. 2023;19:e414-22.
94. Menze R, Hesse B, Kusmierczuk M, et al. Synchrotron microtomography reveals insights into the degradation kinetics of bio-degradable coronary magnesium scaffolds. Bioact Mater. 2024;32:1-11.
95. Kang SH, Gogas BD, Jeon KH, et al. Long-term safety of bioresorbable scaffolds: insights from a network meta-analysis including 91 trials. EuroIntervention. 2018;13:1904-13.
96. Early M, Kelly DJ. The consequences of the mechanical environment of peripheral arteries for nitinol stenting. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011;49:1279-88.
97. Struczewska P, Razian SA, Townsend K, et al. Mechanical, structural, and physiologic differences between above and below-knee human arteries. Acta Biomater. 2024;177:278-99.
98. Sakamoto A, Jinnouchi H, Torii S, Virmani R, Finn AV. Understanding the impact of stent and scaffold material and strut design on coronary artery thrombosis from the basic and clinical points of view. Bioengineering. 2018;5:71.
99. Nguyen DT, Smith AF, Jiménez JM. Stent strut streamlining and thickness reduction promote endothelialization. J R Soc Interface. 2021;18:20210023.
100. Marsden Back L, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ladwiniec A. The safety and efficacy profile of magnesium-based bioresorbable coronary stents as compared to poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbable and contemporary drug-eluting coronary stents-a systematic review. Cardiol Res Pract. 2025;2025:7481956.
101. Cheng CK, Wang N, Wang L, Huang Y. Biophysical and biochemical roles of shear stress on endothelium: a revisit and new insights. Circ Res. 2025;136:752-72.
102. Kawashima H, Ono M, Kogame N, et al. Drug-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in cardiovascular disease, peripheral artery and gastrointestinal fields: a clinical update. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2020;17:931-45.
103. Azzalini L, Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Optimal dual antiplatelet therapy duration for bioresorbable scaffolds: an individual patient data pooled analysis of the ABSORB trials. EuroIntervention. 2021;17:e981-8.
104. Wu Y, Yin J, Li C, et al. The standard versus prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after the XINSORB bioresorbable scaffold implantation (SPARTA) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2023;24:49.
105. Angiolillo DJ, Galli M, Alexopoulos D, et al. International consensus statement on platelet function and genetic testing in percutaneous coronary intervention: 2024 update. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024;17:2639-63.
106. O’Riordan M. The bioresorbable stent story so far: what promise? What price? Available from https://www.tctmd.com/news/bioresorbable-stent-story-so-far-what-promise-what-price [accessed 3 March 2026].
107. Baron SJ, Lei Y, Chinnakondepalli K, et al.; ABSORB III Investigators. Economic outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: 1-year results from the ABSORB III trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:774-82.
108. Kozuma K, Tanabe K, Hamazaki Y, et al.; ABSORB Japan Investigators. Long-term outcomes of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stent- a randomized comparison through 5 years in Japan. Circ J. 2020;84:733-41.
109. Europe Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Market Worth $103.45 Million By 2030. Available from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/europe-bioresorbable-vascular-scaffold-market-analysis [accessed 3 March 2026].
110. McKeown LA. Bioresorbable scaffold for CLTI appears to be an economical option: LIFE-BTK. Available from https://www.tctmd.com/news/bioresorbable-scaffold-clti-appears-be-economical-option-life-btk [accessed 3 March 2026].
111. Wlodarczak A, Montorsi P, Torzewski J, et al. One- and two-year clinical outcomes of treatment with resorbable magnesium scaffolds for coronary artery disease: the prospective, international, multicentre BIOSOLVE-IV registry. EuroIntervention. 2023;19:232-9.
112. Felix C. Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) for the treatment of coronary artery disease in clinical practice. 2019. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/116450/ [accessed 3 March 2026].
113. Koh DJ, Tao BS, Alonso A, et al. Regional and specialty-based medicare reimbursement trends in arterial endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2025;82:1503-1510.e1.
114. Schmid T. Costs of treating cardiovascular events in Germany: a systematic literature review. Health Econ Rev. 2015;5:27.
115. Wang Y, Zhang X. Vascular restoration therapy and bioresorbable vascular scaffold. Regen Biomater. 2014;1:49-55.
116. Gaudiello E, Melly L, Cerino G, et al. Scaffold composition determines the angiogenic outcome of cell-based vascular endothelial growth factor expression by modulating its microenvironmental distribution. Adv Healthc Mater. 2017;6:1700600.
117. Chu TM, Chan YC, Cheng SW. Evidence for treating peripheral arterial diseases with biodegradable scaffolds. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;58:87-94.
118. Tomilova OG, Kryukov VY, Kryukova NA, et al. Effects of passages through an insect or a plant on virulence and physiological properties of the fungus Metarhizium robertsii. PeerJ. 2023;11:e15726.
119. Gordon LG, Rodriguez-Acevedo AJ, Køster B, et al. Association of indoor tanning regulations with health and economic outcomes in North America and Europe. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:401-10.
120. Helou B, Bel-Brunon A, Dupont C, et al. Patient-specific finite element simulation of peripheral artery percutaneous transluminal angioplasty to evaluate the procedure outcome without stent implantation. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2023;39:e3685.
