4.8 Article

Oral everolimus inhibits in-stent neointimal growth

Journal

CIRCULATION
Volume 106, Issue 18, Pages 2379-2384

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000033973.06059.04

Keywords

pathology; restenosis; stent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-Rapamycin (sirolimus)-eluting stents are associated with reduced restenosis rates in animal studies and initial human trials. The present study evaluated whether orally administered everolimus (a macrolide of the same family as sirolimus) inhibits in-stent neointimal growth in rabbit iliac arteries. Methods and Results-New Zealand white rabbits were randomized to everolimus 1.5 mg/kg per day starting 3 days before stenting and reduced to 1 mg/kg per day from days 14 to 28 (group 1), everolimus 1.5 mg/kg given 1 day before stenting followed by 0.75 mg/kg per day for 28 days (group 2), or matching placebo for each group. Drugs were administered by oral gavage. Stents were deployed in both iliac arteries, and arteries were harvested 28 days after stenting. Group 1 everolimus-treated rabbits experienced weight loss and anorexia, which resolved after the everolimus dose was lowered on day 14. Group 2 animals were healthy for the duration of everolimus dosing. Both everolimus treatment groups significantly reduced in-stent neointimal growth (46% reduction and 42% reduction in intimal thickness in groups 1 and 2, respectively). In group 2 everolimus-treated animals, the neointima was healed or healing, characterized by stent struts covered by a thin neointima, overlying endothelial cells, and only small foci of fibrin. Scanning electron microscopy showed >80% stent surface endothelialization in group 2 everolimus-treated rabbits. Conclusions-Oral everolimus suppresses in-stent neointimal growth in the rabbit iliac artery. At a dose of 1.5 mg/kg given 1 day before stenting followed by 0.75 mg/kg per day for 28 days, everolimus was well tolerated and was associated with significant neointimal healing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available