4.7 Article

In-stent restenosis limitation with stent-based controlled-release nitric oxide: Initial results in rabbits

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 230, Issue 2, Pages 377-382

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2302020417

Keywords

animals; arteries, femoral; arteries, restenosis; experimental study; stents and prostheses

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To evaluate effect of controlled stent-based release of an NO donor to limit in-stent restenosis in rabbits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bioerodable microspheres containing NO donor or biodegradable polymer (polylactide-co-glycolide-polyethylene glycol) were prepared and loaded in channeled stents. Daily concentrations of NO release from NO-containing microspheres were assayed in vitro. NO- and polymer-containing (control) microsphere-loaded stents were deployed in aortas of New Zealand white rabbits (n = 8). Aortas with stents were harvested at 7 (n = 5) and 28 days (n = 3) and evaluated for cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) levels (7 days), number of proliferating cell nuclear antigen-positive cells (7 days), and intima-to-media ratio (7 and 28 days), with statistical significance evaluated by using one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: NO-containing microspheres released NO with an initial bolus in the 1 st week, followed by sustained release for the remaining 3 weeks. Significant increase in cGMP levels and decrease in proliferating cell nuclear antigen-positive cells were found at 7 days for the NO-treated relative to controls (P < .05). Intima-to-group media ratio in the NO-treated group was reduced by 46% and 32% relative to controls at 7 and 28 days; respectively (mean, 0.14 +/- 0:01 [standard error] vs 0,26 +/- 0.02 at 7 days P < .01; 1.34 +/- 0.05 vs 1.98 +/- 0.08 at 28 days P < .01). CONCLUSION: Stent-based controlled release of NO donor significantly reduces in-stent restenosis and is associated with increase in vascular cGMP and suppression of proliferation. ((C))RSNA, 2003.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available