Tissue uptake, distribution, and healing response after delivery of paclitaxel via second-generation iopromide-based balloon coating: a comparison with the first-generation technology in the iliofemoral porcine model.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate vascular drug uptake, distribution and response of second-generation paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) (Cotavance, MEDRAD Interventional, Indianola, Pennsylvania) and compare it with first-generation technology, containing identical excipient and drug concentration.

BACKGROUND

Original PCB technologies displayed a heterogeneous deposition of crystalline paclitaxel-iopromide inside the balloon folds, whereas second-generation PCBs consisted of more homogeneous, circumferential coatings.

METHODS

Paclitaxel tissue uptake was assessed in 20 iliofemoral arteries of a domestic swine. Vascular healing response was assessed in the familial hypercholesterolemic model of iliofemoral in-stent restenosis. Three weeks after bare-metal stent implantation, vascular segments were randomly revascularized with first-generation PCBs (n = 6), second-generation PCBs (n = 6), or plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) (n = 6). At 28 days, angiographic and histological evaluation was performed in all treated segments.

RESULTS

One-hour paclitaxel tissue uptake was 42% higher in the second-generation PCBs (p = 0.03) and resulted in more homogeneous segment-to-segment distribution compared with first-generation PCBs. Both angiography (percentage of diameter stenosis: second-generation 11.5 ± 11% vs. first-generation 21.9 ± 11% vs. PBA 46.5 ± 10%; p < 0.01) and histology (percentage of area stenosis: second-generation 50.5 ± 7% vs. first-generation 54.8 ± 18% vs. PBA 78.2 ± 9%; p < 0.01) showed a decrease in neointimal proliferation in both PCB groups. Histological variance of the percentage of area stenosis was lower in second-generation compared with first-generation PCBs (51.7 vs. 328.3; p = 0.05). The presence of peristrut fibrin deposits (0.5 vs. 2.4; p < 0.01) and medial smooth muscle cell loss (0 vs. 1.7; p < 0.01) were lower in the second-generation compared with first-generation PCBs.

CONCLUSIONS

In the experimental setting, second-generation PCB showed a comparable efficacy profile and more favorable vascular healing response when compared to first-generation PCB. The clinical implications of these findings require further investigation.