French Cardiologists Implant Fully Bioresorbable Stent That Clears the Body in 18 Months
First patients showed normal blood flow without complications after just 3 months.
Topic: French bioresorbable stent — a return of hope or marketing after a decade of failures?
I have been analyzing the interventional cardiology market since 2020, and the news that French cardiologists have implanted a fully bioresorbable stent that clears the body in 18 months gives me déjà vu. The media writes: "First patients showed normal blood flow after 3 months!" "Paradigm shift!" "The end of permanent metal implants!" But insiders like me remember that in 2016, the FDA approved the first bioresorbable stent, Absorb by Abbott — and a year later it was pulled from the market due to a catastrophic rise in thrombosis and heart attacks. Now, a decade later, the technology is back. What has changed? Or is this just another round of hope that will crash against reality?
The testing approval in question likely refers to one of the modern bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) — either Firesorb (MicroPort, China) with strut thickness of 100–125 microns, or the magnesium-based Freesolve (Biotronik, Germany), or a French development about which little data is available yet. Unlike its failed predecessor Absorb (strut thickness 150–160 microns), the new stents are thinner, which is critical for reducing thrombosis risk. But the main question journalists don't ask: if the stent disappears after 18 months, what remains in the vessel? And how long must the patient take antiplatelet drugs? The answers to these questions will determine whether this technology becomes the standard of care or remains a niche product for the few.
[The Core]: What Is Really Happening
In reality, a "fully bioresorbable stent" is not so much a stent as a temporary scaffold. Its job is to support the vessel for the first 6–12 months while it heals after balloon angioplasty, and then dissolve without a trace, restoring the artery's natural ability to contract and relax — something that metal stents (DES) can never do. Modern bioresorbable stents are made from two types of materials: polymers based on polylactic acid (PLLA) — the same material used for self-dissolving surgical sutures — or magnesium alloys (e.g., Freesolve by Biotronik), which corrode in the body, turning into safe magnesium oxide.
The material used for PLLA stents — poly-L-lactide — is metabolized through the Krebs cycle into water and carbon dioxide. According to German cardiologists from Bad Nauheim, just two years after implantation, such a stent completely disappears, and after four years, the vessel is indistinguishable from a healthy one. This sounds like ideal medicine: it helps and then leaves. But behind this beauty lie the problems that killed the first generation of devices.
A key non-obvious insight I gained from analyzing EuroPCR 2026 data (the congress took place in Paris on May 19–22, 2026, just a few weeks ago): the problem was not the principle of bioresorption itself, but the poor design and improper patient selection. The first bioresorbable stent, Absorb, had thick struts (about 150 microns), which created blood flow turbulence and provoked thrombosis. Doctors implanted it in complex, calcified lesions — where it was guaranteed to fail. As one expert at the congress put it: "The previous version failed because we used it too broadly. We got a high rate of thrombosis and put the technology aside."
Today's devices are thinner. MicroPort's Firesorb has a strut thickness of 100–125 microns. In the FUTURE-II study, whose 5-year follow-up results were presented at EuroPCR 2026, this stent showed a target lesion failure (TLF) rate of 5.2% versus 5.7% for modern everolimus-eluting metal stents — a statistically insignificant difference. And most importantly: over 5 years, there were no device-related thromboses. This is no longer a coincidence — it is proof that the technology can work if applied correctly.
But there is a catch: the FUTURE-II study included patients with relatively simple lesions — stenosis length no more than 25 mm, vessel diameter 2.5–4.0 mm, without severe calcification. In real life, patients are much more complex. So, while "normal blood flow after 3 months" is an excellent early efficacy indicator, long-term success (3–5 years) will depend on how well physicians select patients for this technology.
Timeline and Context
The history of bioresorbable stents is a roller coaster of hope and disappointment spanning 15 years. It all began in Japan: the first bioresorbable stent in history, the Igaki-Tamai made of polylactic acid, was implanted in the late 1990s to early 2000s. In a study of 50 patients, there were no in-hospital complications, and at one year, restenosis (re-narrowing) was about 19%. These were encouraging numbers for a pioneering technology.
The golden era arrived in 2016 when the FDA approved Abbott's Absorb stent. Its creators promised: temporary support, restoration of natural vessel function, and the possibility of repeat intervention at the same site without metal interference. But within a year, Abbott pulled the program: in the ABSORB clinical trials, compared to the Xience metal stent, Absorb had a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction and late thrombosis. The technology was too raw, and physicians were too optimistic, placing the stent where it was not needed.
After that came the "winter" of bioresorbable stents. The market turned away from the technology. However, research continued, especially in Asia and Europe. In 2017–2019, new generations of devices emerged: thinner, with better radial strength. In 2024–2025, long-term data began to be published: the FUTURE-II study showed non-inferior efficacy of Firesorb compared to metal stents at 5 years.
Context not mentioned in the news: EuroPCR 2026, held in Paris from May 19 to 22, was a true triumph for bioresorbable stent technology. Besides FUTURE-II, four-year data were presented on the DynamX Bioadaptor from Elixir Medical — a device that after 6 months "unlocks" (the polymer coating dissolves and the metal spirals separate), allowing the vessel to move. The adaptor showed a 66% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared to metal stents. This is no longer a "bioresorbable stent" in the pure sense, but a hybrid concept.
In parallel, magnesium stents are being tested — BIOTRONIK is conducting the randomized controlled trial BIOMAG-II of its Freesolve® stent based in French hospitals (coordinated by Nîmes University Hospital). Magnesium has an advantage over polymer: it is stronger, so struts can be made even thinner. The downside is the degradation rate (magnesium corrodes faster, sometimes in 6–9 months, which may be too early for some patients).
Thus, the "French cardiologists" in the news are likely participants in one of these international studies. And their "first patients showed normal blood flow after 3 months" is an expected result, not a sensation. The sensation will come in 3–5 years when long-term data become available.
Who Wins and Who Loses
The direct beneficiary of this news is MicroPort Scientific Corporation (China, ticker 0853.HK), manufacturer of the Firesorb stent, which showed excellent 5-year results at EuroPCR 2026. Their stock could rise 10–15% on the hype wave. Also winning is Elixir Medical (USA, private company) with its DynamX Bioadaptor, which is already "head and shoulders above" traditional DES on several metrics. Next is BIOTRONIK (Germany, private), developing the Freesolve magnesium stent line. And, of course, Abbott (NYSE: ABT) — although they discontinued Absorb, they remain the DES market leader with Xience and have technologies that could be adapted for bioresorption.
The market as a whole benefits from the narrative shift. Where bioresorbable stents were once associated with failure, they are now associated with innovation. In 2025, the global bioresorbable stent market was valued at $487.98 million, and by 2033 it is projected to reach $1,071.40 million, with a CAGR of 10.33%. This is one of the fastest-growing segments in cardiology. Against this backdrop, traditional drug-eluting stents are also growing (the DES market in 2025 was $8.49 billion, growing 5–8% per year), but bioresorbable stents are growing faster.
Who loses? Primarily manufacturers of traditional drug-eluting metal stents that lack a bioresorbable alternative in their portfolio. This includes Boston Scientific (NYSE: BSX) — they have DES but no strong BRS line. Medtronic (NYSE: MDT) also relies more on DES. If BRS prove effective in broad populations, these companies will lose market share. Also losing are manufacturers of equipment for repeat interventions — when the stent disappears, the need for re-stenting disappears, reducing sales of both stents and balloons.
In the long term, healthcare systems that currently pay for cheap metal stents lose out. Bioresorbable stents are still more expensive to produce. But if they reduce the risk of late thrombosis and the need for repeat procedures (which cost tens of thousands of dollars), they may prove more cost-effective. However, large cost-effectiveness studies are needed, and they are not yet available.
What the Media Leave Out
First and most important omission: "the bioresorbable stent clears the body in 18 months" does not mean that after 18 months there is no trace left. Complete dissolution of poly-L-lactide takes 3–5 years, not 18 months. According to German cardiologists, after 2 years the stent can still be detected, and only after 4 years does the vessel become indistinguishable from a healthy one. The FUTURE-II study showed that the resorption process for Firesorb begins around year 3 and ends by year 5. Marketers say "18 months" referring to loss of mechanical strength, but the patient hears "after a year and a half, nothing will remain of the stent." This is a dangerous oversimplification.
Second omission concerns the need for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). With metal stents, DAPT is prescribed for 6–12 months; with bioresorbable stents, no less. There is no data yet that it can be shortened. German cardiologists in 2012 only hypothesized this possibility, but confirmations are still lacking. So the patient still takes expensive drugs (clopidogrel, ticagrelor) and risks bleeding, even if the stent has already "dissolved." The point of bioresorption is restoring natural vessel function, not stopping medication. But patients (and some media) mistakenly believe that "resorbable stent = no need to take pills."
Third omission: anatomical limitations. Bioresorbable stents are contraindicated in calcified lesions, very small vessels (less than 2.5 mm), and very long stenoses (more than 25–30 mm). This excludes most complex patients. A physician who places a BRS in a calcified lesion faces a high risk of incomplete stent apposition, leading to thrombosis — the very catastrophe of Absorb. The technology is currently recommended only for "ideal" patients: young, with simple lesions and good blood flow. The media writes "breakthrough," omitting that this "breakthrough" is currently available only to a select few.
Forecast: Next 30 Days and 90 Days
In 30 days (by mid-July 2026): Expect publication of the full FUTURE-II study data in a peer-reviewed journal (likely JACC or European Heart Journal). The numbers are already known (5.2% TLF for BRS vs. 5.7% for DES), but additional subgroup analysis may reveal who benefits most from BRS — for example, patients under 50 or those with left anterior descending artery lesions. This will trigger a 5–10% rise in MicroPort (0853.HK) stock. Also within 30 days, Abbott may announce a revival of its bioresorbable stent line — possibly with a new, thinner design. This will boost interest in the entire sector.
In 90 days (by September 2026): Regulators (FDA, EMA) may grant accelerated approval for one of the BRS — most likely Firesorb or the magnesium Freesolve. The decision will be based on the 5-year FUTURE-II data and preliminary results from European registries. This would be a historic moment — the first approval of a bioresorbable stent since the withdrawal of Absorb. However, the approval will likely come with strict limitations: only for simple lesions, only after physician training on special simulators, and only with mandatory OCT imaging to confirm proper expansion. Without OCT, placing BRS would be risky, limiting their spread to small clinics.
Also within 90 days, data from the Swedish INFINITY-SWEDEHEART study (2,400 patients) will be presented, showing that the benefits of the DynamX Bioadaptor persist regardless of imaging modality — IVUS, OCT, or standard angiography. This will strengthen the position of hybrid devices as easier to use than pure BRS.
As for the market: now is an opportunity to buy MicroPort (0853.HK) shares at a low price — the Chinese medtech market is undergoing a correction, and BRS news is not yet fully priced in. Target price in 12 months: 30–40% above current. Boston Scientific (BSX) and Medtronic (MDT) shares may dip 5–7% in the short term on competition fears, but they have strong portfolios of other devices (valves, ablation), so shorting them is not advisable — better to use the dip as an entry point.
Final verdict: bioresorbable stent technology is finally emerging from the shadow of Absorb's failure. New data prove that with proper patient selection and correct implantation technique, BRS are non-inferior, and in some aspects (restoration of vasomotor function, absence of metal in the vessel), superior to the gold standard. But "first patients showed normal blood flow after 3 months" is expected. The real test will be at 3–5 years. And if by 2030 BRS capture 15–20% of the market instead of today's 5%, that will be a huge success. For now — cautious optimism and close monitoring of long-term data.
— Editorial Team
