M. Oberhoff et al., TIME-COURSE OF SMOOTH-MUSCLE CELL-PROLIFERATION AFTER LOCAL-DRUG DELIVERY OF LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT HEPARIN USING A POROUS BALLOON CATHETER, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis, 41(3), 1997, pp. 268-274
It has been reported previously that systemic application of low molec
ular weight heparin (LMWH) suppresses smooth muscle cell (SMC) prolife
ration after balloon angioplasty in experimental studies. However, the
high concentration of heparin required for a beneficial effect may ca
use severe bleeding complications. The ideal situation to overcome the
systemic side effects would be to administer LMWH locally and deep in
to the arterial wall, which became possible by the development of poro
us balloon catheters. The in vivo feasibility of local delivery of LMW
H using the porous balloon has been assessed by delivering tritium-mar
ked LMWH into rabbit carotid arteries. The efficacy of the system was
investigated by using a second injury animal model, After development
of an intimal plaque by electrical stimulation, 61 rabbits were treate
d with the porous balloon after balloon angioplasty. In 23 rabbits, lo
cal drug delivery was accomplished with a porous balloon catheter (35
holes, hole diameter 75 mu m, 2.5 mm catheter diameter). LMWH was loca
lly administered with 4 mi (solution 375 anti-Xa-units/ml) and 2 atm.
To study the extent of restenosis and morphological changes, these ani
mals were killed 3, 7, 14, 28, or 56 d after intervention. After stain
ing (hematoxylin, van Gieson, BrdU, RAM 11, alpha-actin) procedures to
quantify SMC proliferation, intimal macrophages and morphological ana
lysis were performed. Porous balloon treatment led to an increase in i
ntimal SMC proliferation rate in the early stage after intervention. H
owever, during the following time period, a significant decrease of th
e proliferation rate as compared with the animals treated with balloon
angioplasty alone could be observed, which resulted in an only modera
te increase of the intimal layer after local drug delivery compared wi
th balloon angioplasty alone. (C) 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.