4.7 Review

Biological aspects of radiation and drug-eluting stents for the prevention of restenosis

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 22-30

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardiores.2004.02.001

关键词

restenosis; stents; angioplasty; smooth muscle; remodeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on recent advances, this article aims to review the biological basis for the use of either radiation or drug-eluting stents for the prevention of restenosis, and to elucidate the complementary role that they may play in the future. Vascular restenosis is a multifactorial process primarily driven by the remodeling of the arterial wall, as well as by the hyperproliferation of smooth muscle cells (SMC). These pathophysiological features are the target of therapeutic strategies aimed at inhibiting constrictive remodeling as well as inhibiting SMC proliferation. The success of radiation as well as anti-proliferative drugs such as paclitaxel and sirolimus lies in the primary and/or multifactorial inhibition of cell proliferation. Radiation has the additional feature of preventing constrictive remodeling while sirolimus has the potential property of being anti-inflammatory, which may be a desirable feature. The effects of radiation are not reliant on any uptake and metabolism by the target cells, as in the case with drugs, and thus radiation potentially may be more effective as a result of its more-direct action. However, radiation does have some significant drawbacks compared to drug-eluting stents, including a much delayed re-endothelialization resulting in the need for prolonged anti-platelet therapy. Based on recent clinical data. drug-eluting stents have been shown to markedly reduce the likelihood of restenosis, which actually favors this approach for the prevention of restenosis. From a biological perspective, drug-eluting stents and radiation have certain differences, which are reviewed in this article. (C) 2004 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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