Will traditional metal stent designs remain on top, or will bioabsorbable versions take their place?

For quite a few years, the great stent debate revolved around the efficacy of bare-metal versus drug-eluting stents. The tide is changing, however, as Abbott's bioabsorbable stent inches closer to commercialization and the new debate centers on the benefits of traditional stents compared with dissolvable versions. 

In an editorial last year, I addressed the buzz surrounding bioabsorbable stents and their potential for eliminating the opportunity for stent thrombosis to occur and for possible explantation procedures, thus improving patient care. The traditional lattice-work metal-based design would be replaced by a dissolvable material that, after fulfilling its designated function, would break down and be absorbed into the body.

I also discussed that the pioneering efforts of Abbott Vascular in this area could be an industry game-changer in terms of stent design and materials. Following up on progress in this area, the September 13 edition of Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the first such stent by Abbott, implanted in a New Zealand man in 2006, dissolved as intended, leaving behind only a "healthy, unencumbered vessel."

Armed with this and other data, Abbott may be able to commercialize its bioabsorbable stent in Europe within the next 18 months, which is three years ahead of several other companies with bioabsorbable stents in development, according to Bloomberg. However, a new debate is brewing as Bloomberg quotes a source from Johnson & Johnson's Cordis unit and a Boston-based cardiologist that question the viability of the new dissolvable design. 

So, what say you, blog readers? Do you think bioabsorbable stents will live up to their hype and, over time, replace traditional designs? Or do you think traditional materials and designs will remain on top? Check out my editorial from last year for some background information on the subject and let me know in the comments section what you think.