Effect of Biodegradable magnesium alloy stents in neointima proliferation and re-endothelialization of vein graft anastomotic restenosis

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2017.11.004

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To evaluate the effect of biodegradable magnesium alloy stent and stainless steel 316L stent in vein graft anastomotic restenosis, and the influence on vascular remodeling.

Methods

27 male New Zealand white rabbits were divided into 3 groups (n=9 in each group), anesthetized by 3% sodium pentobarbital. External jugular vein was anastomosis to infra-renal abdominal aorta with 9-0 suture. 1 month after operation, two type of stents were randomly implanted in the stenosis anastomosis of vein graft. Biodegradable magnesium alloy stent (BMAS) were implanted in BMAS group. 316L stainless steel stent were implanted in 316L group, while control group (NC) did not receive stent implanting. DSA was carried out through ear vein at months 1, 2, 3 and 4 after stent implantation to measure the infra-renal abdominal aorta and vein graft anastomosis diameter. Paraffin section of the vein graft were performed Elastin and Van Gieson stain to evaluate vascular morphology and neointimal area. Evans blue staining was performed and detected OD value at a wavelength of 620 nm to evaluate the process of vascular re-endothelialization.

Results

Both stents can effectively support the anastomotic, and reduce loss of lumen diameter, the mechanical support effect of biodegradable magnesium alloy stent is not inferior to that of stainless steel stent. The neointimal area induced by biodegradable magnesium stent was similar to that of control group at 4th month [(4.80±0.58) mm², vs. (4.17±0.56) mm², P=0.112], which was significantly smaller than the control group [(4.80±0.58) mm², vs. (6.97±0.78) mm², P<0.001]. The OD value of 316L group was obviously higher than the other two groups [316L vs. NC: (0.19±0.03) vs. (0.09±0.01), P=0.001; 316L vs. BMAS: (0.19±0.03) vs. (0.08±0.01), P=0.001] at 4th month, while BMAS group and control group showed no significant difference [(0.08±0.01) vs. (0.09±0.01), P=0.940].

Conclusion

BMAS can effectively support the narrow vein graft anastomosis after implantation, which is similar to 316L stainless steel stent in mechanical support. However, BMAS was superior to 316L stent in reducing neointimal area and promoting re-endothelialization, which can be used as a potential method to prevent the restenosis of vein grafts.

Key words: Biodegradable magnesium alloy stent, Vein graft, Restenosis, Neointima proliferation, Endothelialization

Yugang Li, Dong Yang, Lei Wang, Junyuan Lyu, Dan Yu, Shijie Xin. Effect of Biodegradable magnesium alloy stents in neointima proliferation and re-endothelialization of vein graft anastomotic restenosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2017, 11(11): 1881-1885.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhlcyszz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2017.11.004

https://zhlcyszz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2017/V11/I11/1881

Figures/Tables 2

References 25

[1]	Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease [J]. N Engl J Med, 2009, 360(10): 961-972.
[2]	Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial [J]. Lancet, 2013, 381(9867): 629-638.
[3]	Habib RH, Dimitrova KR, Badour SA, et al. CABG Versus PCI: Greater Benefit in Long-Term Outcomes With Multiple Arterial Bypass Grafting[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2015, 66(13): 1417-1427.
[4]	Harskamp RE, Lopes RD, Baisden CE, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: pathophysiology, management, and future directions [J]. Ann Surg, 2013, 257(5): 824-833.
[5]	Brennan JM, Sketch MH Jr, Dai D, et al. Safety and clinical effectiveness of drug-eluting stents for saphenous vein graft intervention in older individuals: Results from the medicare-linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry® CathPCI Registry® (2005-2009) [J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2016, 87(1): 43-49.
[6]	Pokala NR, Menon RV, Patel SM, et al. Long-term outcomes with first- vs. second-generation drug-eluting stents in saphenous vein graft lesions [J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2016, 87(1): 34-40.
[7]	Kedhi E, Joesoef KS, McFadden E, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice(COMPARE): A randomised trial [J]. Lancet, 2010, 375(9710): 201-209.
[8]	Stone GW, Rizvi A, Newman W, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease [J]. New Engl J Med, 2010, 362(18): 1663-1674.
[9]	Heublein B, Rohde R, Kaese V, et al. Biocorrosion of magnesium alloys: a new principle in cardiovascular implant technology? [J]. Heart, 2003, 89(6): 651-656.
[10]	Haude M, Erbel R, Erne P, et al. Safety and performance of the drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold(DREAMS) in patients with de-novo coronary lesions: 12 month results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial [J]. Lancet, 2013, 381(9869): 836-844.
[11]	Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, et al. Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de-novo coronary artery lesions(BIOSOLVE-II): 6 month results of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, first-in-man trial [J]. Lancet, 2016, 387(10013): 31-39.
[12]	Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American college of cardiology foundation/American heart association task force on practice guidelines and the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions [J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011, 58(24): e44-e122.
[13]	Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: A case for standardized definitions [J]. Circulation, 2007, 115(17): 2344-2351.
[14]	Waksman R, Pakala R, Kuchulakanti PK, et al. Safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable magnesium alloy stents in porcine coronary arteries [J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006, 68(4): 607-617.
[15]	Ghimire G, Spiro J, Kharbanda R, et al. Initial evidence for the return of coronary vasoreactivity following the absorption of bioabsorbable magnesium alloy coronary stents [J]. Eurointervention, 2009, 4(4): 481-484.
[16]	Tanimoto S, Bruining N, van Domburg RT, et al. Late stent recoil of the bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent and its relationship with plaque morphology [J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008, 52(20): 1616-1620.
[17]	Maeng M, Jensen LO, Falk E, et al. Negative vascular remodeling after implantation of bioabsorbable magnesium alloy stents in porcine coronary arteries: a randomised comparison with bare-metal and sirolimus-eluting stents [J]. Heart, 2009, 95(3): 241-246.
[18]	Mehran R, Dangas G, Abizaid AS, et al. Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome [J]. Circulation, 1999, 100(18): 1872-1878.
[19]	Curcio A, Torella D, Indolfi C. Mechanisms of smooth muscle cell proliferation and endothelial regeneration after vascular injury and stenting: approach to therapy [J]. Circ J, 2011, 75(6): 1287-1296.
[20]	Sternberg K, Gratz M, Koeck K, et al. Magnesium used in bioabsorbable stents controls smooth muscle cell proliferation and stimulates endothelial cells in vitro [J]. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2012, 100(1): 41-50.
[21]	Ma J, Zhao N, Zhu D. Biphasic responses of human vascular smooth muscle cells to magnesium ion [J]. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2016, 104(2): 347-356.
[22]	Li H, Zhong H, Xu K, et al. Enhanced efficacy of sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable magnesium alloy stents in the prevention of restenosis [J]. J Endovasc Ther, 2011, 18(3): 407-415.
[23]	Maier JA, Bernardini D, Rayssiguier Y, et al. High concentrations of magnesium modulate vascular endothelial cell behaviour in vitro [J]. Biochim Biophys Acta, 2004, 1689(1): 6-12.
[24]	Banai S, Haggroth L, Epstein SE, et al. Influence of extracellular magnesium on capillary endothelial cell proliferation and migration [J]. Circ Res, 1990, 67(3): 645-650.
[25]	Zhao N, Zhu D. Endothelial responses of magnesium and other alloying elements in magnesium-based stent materials [J]. Metallomics, 2015, 7(1): 118-128.

组别	例数	近心端吻合口管腔直径丢失
组别	例数	置入前	1个月	2个月	3个月	4个月
NC组	9	0.92±0.21	0.80±0.20	0.65±0.10	0.62±0.12	0.60±0.15
316L组	9	0.98±0.22	0.17±0.18	0.20±0.11	0.20±0.11	0.15±0.05
BMAS组	9	0.88±0.15	0.15±0.15	0.27±0.10	0.20±0.09	0.23±0.10
组别	例数	远心端吻合口管腔直径丢失
组别	例数	置入前	1个月	2个月	3个月	4个月
NC组	9	0.83±0.19	0.78±0.18	0.67±0.12	0.67±0.18	0.63±0.16
316L组	9	0.77±0.14	0.22±0.15	0.27±0.12	0.20±0.09	0.22±0.08
BMAS组	9	0.80±0.18	0.20±0.14	0.23±0.12	0.22±0.12	0.23±0.15

组别	例数	近心端吻合口管腔直径丢失
组别	例数	置入前	1个月	2个月	3个月	4个月
NC组	9	0.92±0.21	0.80±0.20	0.65±0.10	0.62±0.12	0.60±0.15
316L组	9	0.98±0.22	0.17±0.18	0.20±0.11	0.20±0.11	0.15±0.05
BMAS组	9	0.88±0.15	0.15±0.15	0.27±0.10	0.20±0.09	0.23±0.10
组别	例数	远心端吻合口管腔直径丢失
组别	例数	置入前	1个月	2个月	3个月	4个月
NC组	9	0.83±0.19	0.78±0.18	0.67±0.12	0.67±0.18	0.63±0.16
316L组	9	0.77±0.14	0.22±0.15	0.27±0.12	0.20±0.09	0.22±0.08
BMAS组	9	0.80±0.18	0.20±0.14	0.23±0.12	0.22±0.12	0.23±0.15

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export