Carter A J, Scott D, Laird J R, Bailey L, Kovach J A, Hoopes T G, Pierce K, Heath K, Hess K, Farb A, Virmani R
Heart Institute, Borgess Medical Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001-1640, USA.
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998 Jun;44(2):193-201. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0304(199806)44:2<193::aid-ccd13>3.0.co;2-o.
Despite the improvements afforded by intracoronary stenting, restenosis remains a significant problem. The optimal physical properties of a stent have not been defined. We compared the vascular response to a thermoelastic self-expanding nitinol stent with a balloon-expandable tubular slotted stainless steel stent in normal porcine coronary arteries. Twenty-two stents (11 nitinol and 11 tubular slotted) were implanted in 11 miniature swine. The nitinol stents were deployed using the intrinsic thermal properties of the metal, without adjunctive balloon dilation. The tubular slotted stents were implanted using a noncompliant balloon with a mean inflation pressure of 12 atm. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and histology were used to evaluate the vascular response to the stents. The mean cross-sectional area (CSA) of the nitinol stents (mm2) as measured by IVUS increased from 8.13 +/- 1.09 at implant to 9.10 +/- 0.99 after 28 days (P = 0.038), while the mean CSA of the tubular slotted stents was unchanged (7.84 +/- 1.39 mm2 vs. 7.10 +/- 1.07 mm2, P = 0.25). On histology at 3 days, the tubular slotted stents had more inflammatory cells adjacent to the stent wires (5.7 +/- 1.5 cells/0.1 mm2) than the nitinol (3.9 +/- 1.3 cells/0.1 mm2, P = 0.016). The tubular slotted also had increased thrombus thickness (83 +/- 85 microm) than the nitinol stents (43 +/- 25 microm, P = 0.0014). After 28 days, the vessel injury score was similar for the nitinol (0.6 +/- 0.3) and the tubular slotted (0.5 +/- 0.1, P = 0.73) designs. The mean neointimal area (0.97 +/- 0.46 mm2 vs. 1.96 +/- 0.34 mm2, P = 0.002) and percent area stenosis (15 +/- 7 vs. 33 +/- 7, P = 0.003) were significantly lower in the nitinol than in the tubular slotted stents, respectively. We conclude that a thermoelastic nitinol stent exerts a more favorable effect on vascular remodeling, with less neointimal formation, than a balloon-expandable design. Progressive intrinsic stent expansion after implant does not appear to stimulate neointimal formation and, therefore, may provide a mechanical solution to prevent in-stent restenosis.
尽管冠状动脉内支架置入术带来了诸多改善,但再狭窄仍是一个重大问题。支架的最佳物理特性尚未明确。我们比较了热弹性自膨胀镍钛合金支架与球囊扩张式管状开槽不锈钢支架在正常猪冠状动脉中的血管反应。在11只小型猪体内植入了22个支架(11个镍钛合金支架和11个管状开槽支架)。镍钛合金支架利用金属的固有热特性展开,无需辅助球囊扩张。管状开槽支架使用平均膨胀压力为12个大气压的非顺应性球囊植入。采用血管内超声(IVUS)和组织学方法评估血管对支架的反应。IVUS测量的镍钛合金支架平均横截面积(mm²)从植入时的8.13±1.09增加到28天后的9.10±0.99(P = 0.038),而管状开槽支架的平均横截面积未变(7.84±1.39 mm²对7.10±1.07 mm²,P = 0.25)。在术后3天的组织学检查中,管状开槽支架在支架丝附近的炎症细胞(5.7±1.5个细胞/0.1 mm²)比镍钛合金支架(3.9±1.3个细胞/0.1 mm²,P = 0.016)更多。管状开槽支架的血栓厚度(83±85微米)也比镍钛合金支架(43±25微米,P = 0.0014)增加。28天后,镍钛合金支架(0.6±0.3)和管状开槽支架(0.5±0.1,P = 0.73)的血管损伤评分相似。镍钛合金支架的平均新生内膜面积(0.97±0.46 mm²对1.96±0.34 mm²,P = 0.002)和面积狭窄百分比(15±7对33±7,P = 0.003)分别显著低于管状开槽支架。我们得出结论,与球囊扩张式设计相比,热弹性镍钛合金支架对血管重塑具有更有利的影响,新生内膜形成更少。植入后支架的渐进性固有扩张似乎不会刺激新生内膜形成,因此可能为预防支架内再狭窄提供一种机械解决方案。