JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2013
Tissue uptake, distribution, and healing response after delivery of paclitaxel via second-generation iopromide-based balloon coating: a comparison with the first-generation technology in the iliofemoral porcine model.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buszman Piotr P, Tellez Armando, Afari Maxwell E, Peppas Athanasios, Conditt Gerard B, Rousselle Serge D, McGregor Jennifer C, Stenoien Mark, Kaluza Greg L, Granada Juan F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate vascular drug uptake, distribution and response of second-generation paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) (Cotavance, MEDRAD Interventional, Indianola, Pennsylvania) and compare it with first-generation technology, containing identical excipient and drug concentration.
BACKGROUND: Original PCB technologies displayed a heterogeneous deposition of crystalline paclitaxel-iopromide inside the balloon folds, whereas second-generation PCBs consisted of more homogeneous, circumferential coatings.
METHODS: Paclitaxel tissue uptake was assessed in 20 iliofemoral arteries of a domestic swine. Vascular healing response was assessed in the familial hypercholesterolemic model of iliofemoral in-stent restenosis. Three weeks after bare-metal stent implantation, vascular segments were randomly revascularized with first-generation PCBs (n = 6), second-generation PCBs (n = 6), or plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) (n = 6). At 28 days, angiographic and histological evaluation was performed in all treated segments.
RESULTS: One-hour paclitaxel tissue uptake was 42% higher in the second-generation PCBs (p = 0.03) and resulted in more homogeneous segment-to-segment distribution compared with first-generation PCBs. Both angiography (percentage of diameter stenosis: second-generation 11.5 ± 11% vs. first-generation 21.9 ± 11% vs. PBA 46.5 ± 10%; p < 0.01) and histology (percentage of area stenosis: second-generation 50.5 ± 7% vs. first-generation 54.8 ± 18% vs. PBA 78.2 ± 9%; p < 0.01) showed a decrease in neointimal proliferation in both PCB groups. Histological variance of the percentage of area stenosis was lower in second-generation compared with first-generation PCBs (51.7 vs. 328.3; p = 0.05). The presence of peristrut fibrin deposits (0.5 vs. 2.4; p < 0.01) and medial smooth muscle cell loss (0 vs. 1.7; p < 0.01) were lower in the second-generation compared with first-generation PCBs.
CONCLUSIONS: In the experimental setting, second-generation PCB showed a comparable efficacy profile and more favorable vascular healing response when compared to first-generation PCB. The clinical implications of these findings require further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Original PCB technologies displayed a heterogeneous deposition of crystalline paclitaxel-iopromide inside the balloon folds, whereas second-generation PCBs consisted of more homogeneous, circumferential coatings.
METHODS: Paclitaxel tissue uptake was assessed in 20 iliofemoral arteries of a domestic swine. Vascular healing response was assessed in the familial hypercholesterolemic model of iliofemoral in-stent restenosis. Three weeks after bare-metal stent implantation, vascular segments were randomly revascularized with first-generation PCBs (n = 6), second-generation PCBs (n = 6), or plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) (n = 6). At 28 days, angiographic and histological evaluation was performed in all treated segments.
RESULTS: One-hour paclitaxel tissue uptake was 42% higher in the second-generation PCBs (p = 0.03) and resulted in more homogeneous segment-to-segment distribution compared with first-generation PCBs. Both angiography (percentage of diameter stenosis: second-generation 11.5 ± 11% vs. first-generation 21.9 ± 11% vs. PBA 46.5 ± 10%; p < 0.01) and histology (percentage of area stenosis: second-generation 50.5 ± 7% vs. first-generation 54.8 ± 18% vs. PBA 78.2 ± 9%; p < 0.01) showed a decrease in neointimal proliferation in both PCB groups. Histological variance of the percentage of area stenosis was lower in second-generation compared with first-generation PCBs (51.7 vs. 328.3; p = 0.05). The presence of peristrut fibrin deposits (0.5 vs. 2.4; p < 0.01) and medial smooth muscle cell loss (0 vs. 1.7; p < 0.01) were lower in the second-generation compared with first-generation PCBs.
CONCLUSIONS: In the experimental setting, second-generation PCB showed a comparable efficacy profile and more favorable vascular healing response when compared to first-generation PCB. The clinical implications of these findings require further investigation.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Angioplasty, BalloonAnimalsArterial Occlusive DiseasesCardiovascular AgentsCell ProliferationCoated Materials, BiocompatibleConstriction, PathologicContrast MediaDisease Models, AnimalEquipment DesignFemoral ArteryFibrosisHyperlipoproteinemia Type IIIliac ArteryIohexolNeointimaPaclitaxelRadiographySus scrofaTissue DistributionVascular Access DevicesWound Healing