4.7 Article

Low blood flow after angioplasty augments mechanisms of restenosis - Inward vessel remodeling, cell migration, and activity of genes regulating migration

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.21.2.208

关键词

angioplasty; restenosis; remodeling; blood flow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The predominant cause of restenosis after angioplasty is now thought to be inward remodeling, but the mechanisms responsible are unknown. Remodeling in normal vessels is regulated by the endothelium in response to altered shear stress. Although the endothelium is often damaged by angioplasty, restenosis rates after angioplasty have been correlated with impaired coronary flow. Thus, we examined how increases or decreases in blood flow through balloon catheter-injured rat carotid arteries affect vessel morphometry (4, 10, and 28 days), cell migration (4 days), and levels of promigratory mRNAs (2 and 10 days). After 28 days, the luminal area in vessels with low blood flow was significantly less than in those with normal and high blood flow (0.17 +/-0.01 [low] versus 0.24 +/-0.06 [normal] versus 0.30 +/-0.02 [high] mm(2), P<0.01), predominantly because of accentuated inward remodeling (or reduced area within the external elastic lamina; 0.420.02 [low] versus 0.54 +/-0.07 [normal] versus 0.53 +/-0.04 [high] mm(2), P<0.05). Low flow also enhanced smooth muscle cell migration 4 days after injury by 90% above normal and high flows (P<0.01). Two days after injury, low flow significantly increased levels of mRNAs encoding promigratory peptides (integrin alpha (v)beta (3), transforming growth factor-beta (1), CD44v6, MDC9, urokinase plasminogen activator receptor, and beta -inducible gene h3); these changes persisted 10 days after injury and were localized to the neointima. Low blood flow may promote restenosis after angioplasty because of its adverse effect on vessel remodeling, and it is associated with the augmented expression of multiple genes central to cell migration and restenosis.

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