Table 2.

In vivo biocompatibility evaluation for Mg alloys used in stent applications

Alloy	Animal type	Implantation time (day)	Inflammation score	Injury score	Neointimal area (mm2)	Minimal luminal diameter VS benchmark control (mm)	Authors and references
AE21	Domestic pigs, left anterior descending artery	10	–	–	–	3.46 vs 3.36	Heublein et al.[21]
		35	–	–	1.41	1.63 vs 2.59
		56	–	–	2.71	2.48 vs 2.81
WE43	Minipigs, coronary artery	30	–	–	–	1.49 vs 1.34	Di Mario et al.[22]
		90	–	–	–	1.68 vs 1.33
AZ31B	New Zealand white rabbits, distal and proximal infrarenal abdominal aorta	30	1.89 ± 0.76	1.32 ± 0.12	1.44 ± 0.04	–	Li et al.[23]
		60	1.45 ± 0.35	1.54 ± 0.31	1.41 ± 0.08	–
		90	1.16 ± 0.19	1.68 ± 0.65	1.43 ± 0.02	–
		120	1.26 ± 0.34	0.79 ± 0.54	1.47 ± 0.03	–
Sirolimus-eluting	–	30	2.26 ± 0.34	1.25 ± 0.13	0.60 ± 0.22	–
AZ31B		60	1.65 ± 0.48	1.48 ± 0.26	0.63 ± 0.27	–
		90	1.35 ± 0.37	1.49 ± 0.35	0.57 ± 0.14	–
		120	1.31 ± 0.42	1.38 ± 0.35	0.58 ± 0.10	–
AMS (WE43)	Gottingen minipigs, coronary artery	28	–	0.37 ± 0.72	1.14 ± 0.92	1.51 ± 0.46 vs 1.26 ± 0.41	Loos et al.[17]
		56	–	0.12 ± 0.24	1.23 ± 0.55	1.55 ± 0.51 vs 1.09 ± 0.25
Magic stent (WE43)	Juvenile domestic crossbred swine	3	–	–	–	–	Waksman et al.[24]
		28	1.89 ± 1.07	1.67 ± 1.13	34 ± 27.8	2.89 ± 0.26 vs 3.06 ± 0.22
		90	–	0.47 ± 0.33	–	1.58 ± 0.37 vs 1.42 ± 0.56