For some, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) represent one of the most promising technologies in interventional cardiology, but in recent months, multiple reports examining the performance of the leading BVS suggest that while the device performs as well as a permanent metallic stent clinically, it carries an increased risk of stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST) which appears to be a signal of the awareness for interventionalists. The most recent meta-analysis of Lipinski MJ et al. (2016) [ [1] Lipinski M.J. Escarcega R.O. Baker N.C. Scaffold thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention with ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv. 2016; 9: 12-24 Crossref Scopus (160) Google Scholar ] demonstrated that patients who received a BVS were at a higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (odds ratio (OR): 2.06, 95% CI: 1.31 to 3.22, p = 0.002) and definite/probable ST (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.98, p = 0.03) compared with patients who received drug-eluting stents (DES) amid the fact that a target lesion failure (TLF) rate of BVS is recognized as “acceptable” in real-world population underscoring the importance of the adequate lesion selection and preparation with the post-implantation optimization. Moreover, the utilized statistical approaches and drawn conclusions raise the certain criticism even within the author-mentioned limitations. A similar situation is revealed in another review of the most recent trials from Cassese S et al. (2015) [ [2] Cassese S. Byrne R.A. Ndrepepa G. Kufner S. Wiebe J. Repp J. et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. Nov 16 2015; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00979–4 Crossref PubMed Google Scholar ]. Patients treated with BVS had a higher risk of definite or probable ST than those treated with a metallic DES (29/2309 vs 7/1382; OR 1.99, 95% CI: 1.00–3.98, p = 0.05), with the highest risk between 1 and 30 days after implantation (3.11, 1.24–7.82, p = 0.02) [ [2] Cassese S. Byrne R.A. Ndrepepa G. Kufner S. Wiebe J. Repp J. et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. Nov 16 2015; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00979–4 Crossref PubMed Google Scholar ].