4.7 Article

Histopathological evaluation of a retinoic acid eluting stent in a rabbit iliac artery model

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-16025-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund of the European Union
  2. Greek national funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation [T1EDK-03965]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of innovative retinoic acid (RA) eluting stents with bioabsorbable polymer. The results showed that RA eluting stents did not lead to thrombus formation and had an acceptable level of stenosis after 4 weeks of implantation. The dose of RA and type of polymer may play a role in the biocompatibility of the stents.
This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of innovative retinoic acid (RA) eluting stents with bioabsorbable polymer. Sixty stents divided in ten groups were implanted in the iliac arteries of 30 rabbits. Two polymers (A, poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) and B, polylactic acid), and three doses (Low, Medium and High) of RA (groups: AL, AM, AH, BL, BM, BH) were used on cobalt chromium stents (Rontis Corporation), one group of bare stent (C), one group (D) of Everolimus eluting stent (Xience-Pro, Abbot Vascular), and two groups of Rontis Everolimus eluting stents coated with polymer A (EA) and B (EB). Treated arteries were explanted after 4 weeks, processed by methyl methacrylate resin and evaluated by histopathology. None of the implanted stents was related with thrombus formation or extensive inflammation. Image analysis showed limited differences between groups regarding area stenosis (BH, D and EB groups had the lower values). Group BH had lower intimal mean thickness than AH (105.1 vs 75.3 mu m, p = 0.024). Stents eluting RA, a non-cytotoxic drug, were not related with thrombus formation and had an acceptable degree of stenosis 4 weeks post implantation. RA dose and type of polymer may play role in the biocompatibility of the stents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据