|
|
||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 46:231-236, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.01.062
(Published online 5 July 2005). © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |
Swiss Cardiovascular Center Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Manuscript received October 11, 2004; revised manuscript received December 27, 2004, accepted January 11, 2005.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Otto M. Hess, Professor of Cardiology, Swiss Cardiovascular Center, Inselspital, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. (Email: otto.hess{at}insel.ch).
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stents have been shown to markedly reduce the incidence of angiographic and clinical restenosis. However, long-term effects of sirolimus on endothelial function are unknown.
METHODS: Coronary vasomotion was evaluated with biplane quantitative coronary angiography at rest and during supine bicycle exercise in 25 patients with coronary artery disease. Eleven patients were treated with a bare-metal stent (BMS) (control group) and 14 patients underwent SES implantation (sirolimus group) for de novo coronary artery lesions. Both groups were studied 6 ± 1 month after the intervention. Minimal luminal diameter; stent diameter; and proximal, distal, and reference vessel diameter were determined.
RESULTS: The reference vessel showed exercise-induced vasodilation (+13 ± 4%) in both groups. Vasomotion within the stented vessel segments was abolished. In controls, the adjacent segments proximal and distal to the stent showed exercise-induced vasodilation (+15 ± 3% and +17 ± 4%, respectively). In contrast, there was exercise-induced vasoconstriction of the proximal and distal vessel segments adjacent to SESs (12 ± 4% and 15 ± 6%, respectively; p < 0.001 vs. corresponding segments of controls). Sublingual nitroglycerin was associated with maximal vasodilation of the proximal and distal vessel segments in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of a BMS does not affect physiologic response to exercise proximal and distal to the stent. However, SESs are associated with exercise-induced paradoxic coronary vasoconstriction of the adjacent vessel segments, although vasodilatory response to nitroglycerin is maintained. These observations suggest (drug-induced) endothelial dysfunction as the underlying mechanism.
| ||||||
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Study protocol. The local ethics committee approved the protocol, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Vasoactive medication was discontinued at least 48 h before catheterization. Diagnostic catheterization was performed with standard techniques. At the end of diagnostic catheterization, biplane coronary angiography was carried out at rest with the patients feet attached to the supine bicycle ergometer. Exercise was begun at 50 or 75 W and workload was increased every 2 min in increments of 25 or 50 W. The catheter was left in place during exercise. Coronary angiography was carried out at the end of each exercise level and at maximal exercise in deep inspiration. Average workload was slightly higher in the sirolimus group (102 ± 23 W) than in the control group (86 ± 13 W, p = 0.07). The exercise test was terminated because of fatigue, angina pectoris, or ST-segment depression of more than 0.2 mV. At the end of the exercise test, all patients received 1.6 mg nitroglycerin (NTG) sublingually, and 5 min later, coronary angiography was repeated. Nitroglycerin was administered routinely to assess endothelium-independent vasodilation. There were no complications related to the study protocol.
Quantitative coronary angiography. Coronary angiography was performed on a digital X-ray system (Philips DCI-SX and Philips Integris) at 12.5 frames/s. Simultaneous biplane projections were acquired in all patients, and rotation and angulation were adapted to minimize foreshortening of the target vessel. Quantitative evaluation was carried out in monoplane projection. Two orthogonal views were averaged for biplane assessment. Because of vessel overlap, analysis had to be restricted to a single plane in 27% of control group and 36% of sirolimus group segments, respectively. Data analysis was performed with the quantitative coronary analysis package on Philips DCI/Integris systems and has been described in detail previously (1113). Percent changes were calculated in all patients using the baseline angiogram as reference. In both groups, a reference vessel not related to the stented lesion, as well as the stented segment and its adjacent segments proximal and distal (5 to 10 mm proximal and distal to the stent edges), were assessed. In addition, vessel segments between 10 and 20 mm proximal and distal to the stent edges were investigated (proximal reference and distal reference). This measurement was performed to determine the response to exercise within and outside the zone where sirolimus might be effective. The intra- and interobserver variability was low for minimal luminal diameter (<0.10 mm for intraobserver and <0.11 for interobserver variability) (1113). All measurements were done by an independent observer who was blinded to the protocol.
Statistics. Patient data are given as mean ± 1 SD. Vessel diameters as well as cross-sectional lumen area calculations are reported as mean ± 1 SEM unless otherwise specified. Comparison of hemodynamic (heart rate, aortic blood pressure) and angiographic data (including minimal luminal diameter of the stented segment, the proximal and distal segments to the stent, and the proximal and distal reference segments) was performed by an analysis of variance for repeated measurements, specifying stent assignment (BMS/SES) as a between-subjects factor. Data were analyzed at baseline, after exercise, and after NTG administration. For intergroup comparisons we used an unpaired Student t test and for within-group comparisons we used a paired Student t test. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The findings of the present study are as follows: dynamic exercise is associated with paradoxic vasoconstriction of coronary artery segments adjacent to the SES (endothelial dysfunction) and vasodilatory response of the peristent region to NTG is maintained (preserved vasodilatory capacity). This does not, however, imply structural integrity of the endothelium, because NTG is a non-endothelium-dependent vasodilator.
Normal coronary arteries dilate during dynamic exercise because of the enhanced release of nitric oxide (NO) by the endothelium (17,18). In contrast, coronary vasomotion is impaired in patients with coronary artery disease, resulting in exercise-induced vasoconstriction at the site of the stenotic lesions (19). This paradoxic response of the stenotic arteries during exercise has been attributed to the following four mechanisms (12): 1) reduced nitric oxide bioavailability (endothelial dysfunction); 2) enhanced vasoconstrictor response due to enhanced sympathetic stimulation during exercise; 3) enhanced platelet aggregation due to turbulent blood flow; and 4) flow-induced collapse (Venturi effect). Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty normalizes or improves coronary vasomotion (20). Recently, stent implantation has been shown to abolish paradoxic vasoconstriction of coronary stenoses and to render a previously vasoresponsive vessel into a rigid tube (12).
Endothelial recovery after SES implantation. Suzuki et al. (21) have described in the porcine overstretch model that vascular healing after SES and BMS implantation are comparable at 28 days with regard to endothelialization and smooth-muscle cell proliferation. However, fibrin deposits adjacent to SES struts have been observed, representing delayed healing. With paclitaxel, direct inhibition of reendothelialization has been described by Farb et al. (22). Moreover, atherectomy specimens from late in-stent restenotic lesions after implantation of a paclitaxel derivate-eluting stent system have demonstrated delayed endothelial healing and chronic inflammation (23).
Coronary vasomotion after stent implantation. Previously, we have reported (12) that vessel segments adjacent to BMS show physiologic vasodilation during exercise. The present study revealed exercise-induced vasoconstriction of coronary artery segments adjacent to SES (i.e., within a range of 5 to 10 mm proximal and distal to the stent edges [peristent region]). Outside this region (i.e., 10 to 20 mm proximal and distal to the stent edges) exercise-induced vasomotion was normal, comparable to patients with BMS, suggesting that sirolimus may induce vascular damage with endothelial dysfunction, thereby reducing NO availability in the peristent region. Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound data indicate normal structural appearance of the target vessel after SES (24,25). This observation, however, does not exclude functional abnormalities of the peri-stent and in-stent segments after SES implantation. Together with the findings of incomplete endothelial coverage within the stented segment (21,26) and the dysfunctional endothelium proximal and distal to the stent, SES may be vulnerable for late stent thrombosis and peristent restenosis. However, the link between adverse clinical events and abnormal peristent vasomotion is speculative and has yet to be established. The fate of the endothelium after SES implantation remains uncertain, and endothelial recovery may be perturbed.
Study limitations. Testing endothelial function in human arteries is a technically difficult procedure, both with intracoronary acetylcholine infusion and supine bicycle exercise. Therefore, little comparative data are available in the literature, and sample sizes are usually small. Nevertheless, our data provide important insights into vascular physiology of SES-treated coronaries.
Patients with restenosis were excluded for practical and theoretical reasons. First, it is difficult to find patients with in-stent restenosis, because with the introduction of SES it has almost disappeared. Second, in-stent restenosis influences flow pattern with reduced (limited) blood flow and thus decreases in NO release and, therefore, is associated with limited or absent exercise-induced vasomotion.
In our protocol, vasomotion was tested six months after stent implantation. Endothelial healing after SES implantation may be delayed. Therefore, testing endothelial function six months after the intervention may miss long-term functional recovery. Furthermore, the vasomotor response of the peristent region probably reflects a dose-dependent effect of sirolimus on the endothelium. With the advent of stents with different pharmacokinetic properties of sirolimus release, we may observe other responses to exercise.
There was no randomization with regard to stent assignment. Patients were included on a consecutive basis. During a first phase of the study only BMS were used, followed by a later phase during which only SES were implanted. The selection of the individual patient was at random, including those patients who were willing to undergo a second angiogram and to participate in an exercise protocol. Because the assignment of stent type was dependent only on the time point of study inclusion, bias with regard to stent-type decision was minimal and has probably not influenced the result.
Sousa et al. (26) have recently reported lack of complete endothelial coverage in a patient four years after SES implantation without clinical consequence.
The results of this study cannot be directly applied to other drug-eluting stents, particularly those coated with paclitaxel or derivatives thereof.
Conclusions. Coronary artery stenoses show exercise-induced vasoconstriction, whereas normal arteries dilate. Previously, it was reported that stent placement abolishes paradoxic vasoconstriction of the coronary arteries and does not adversely affect vasomotion of the adjacent vessel segments. In the present study, we observed paradoxic exercise-induced vasoconstriction of vessel segments adjacent to SES, although dilatory response to NTG was maintained. Paradoxic vasoconstriction in a vessel segment not subjected to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty barotrauma may be due to diffusion of the antiproliferative drug from the stent to the peri-stent region, inducing endothelial dysfunction.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. J. Pepine Provoked Coronary Spasm and Acute Coronary Syndromes J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 12, 2008; 52(7): 528 - 530. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. D. Abbott Revealing the Silver and Red Lining in Drug-Eluting Stents With Angioscopy Circ Cardiovasc Intervent, August 1, 2008; 1(1): 7 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Joner, G. Nakazawa, A. V. Finn, S. C. Quee, L. Coleman, E. Acampado, P. S. Wilson, K. Skorija, Q. Cheng, X. Xu, et al. Endothelial Cell Recovery Between Comparator Polymer-Based Drug-Eluting Stents J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 29, 2008; 52(5): 333 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. I. Hamilos, M. Ostojic, B. Beleslin, D. Sagic, L. Mangovski, S. Stojkovic, M. Nedeljkovic, D. Orlic, B. Milosavljevic, D. Topic, et al. Differential effects of drug-eluting stents on local endothelium-dependent coronary vasomotion. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 3, 2008; 51(22): 2123 - 2129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Jabs, S. Gobel, P. Wenzel, A. L. Kleschyov, M. Hortmann, M. Oelze, A. Daiber, and T. Munzel Sirolimus-induced vascular dysfunction increased mitochondrial and nicotinamide adenosine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase-dependent superoxide production and decreased vascular nitric oxide formation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 3, 2008; 51(22): 2130 - 2138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. B. Muhlestein Endothelial dysfunction associated with drug-eluting stents what, where, when, and how? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 3, 2008; 51(22): 2139 - 2140. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Li, R. Jabara, L. Pendyala, Y. Otsuka, T. Shinke, D. Hou, K. Robinson, and N. Chronos Abnormal Vasomotor Function of Porcine Coronary Arteries Distal to Sirolimus-Eluting Stents J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., June 1, 2008; 1(3): 279 - 285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Cheng, D. Tempel, A. Oostlander, F. Helderman, F. Gijsen, J. Wentzel, R. van Haperen, D. B. Haitsma, P. W. Serruys, A. F.W. van der Steen, et al. Rapamycin modulates the eNOS vs. shear stress relationship Cardiovasc Res, April 1, 2008; 78(1): 123 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. L. Pinto Slottow and R. Waksman Overview of the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel Meeting on the Endeavor Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent Circulation, March 25, 2008; 117(12): 1603 - 1608. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Nakazawa, Q. Cheng, X. Xu, A. V. Finn, F. D. Kolodgie, and R. Virmani Drug-eluting stent implantation may not affect vasomotor function in early phase. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 18, 2008; 51(11): 1124 - 1125. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. W. Kim, S. Y. Suh, C. U. Choi, J. O. Na, E. J. Kim, S.-W. Rha, C. G. Park, H. S. Seo, and D. J. Oh Six-Month Comparison of Coronary Endothelial Dysfunction Associated With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., February 1, 2008; 1(1): 65 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. J. Kern Persistent Endothelial Dysfunction After Drug-Eluting Stents: Another Continuing Cost of Reducing Restenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., February 1, 2008; 1(1): 72 - 73. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. J. Vlaar, B. J. G. L. de Smet, and F. Zijlstra DES or BMS in acute myocardial infarction? Eur. Heart J., November 2, 2007; 28(22): 2693 - 2694. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Windecker and B. Meier Late Coronary Stent Thrombosis Circulation, October 23, 2007; 116(17): 1952 - 1965. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Camenzind, P. G. Steg, and W. Wijns Response to Letter Regarding Article, "Stent Thrombosis Late After Implantation of First-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents: A Cause for Concern" Circulation, October 16, 2007; 116(16): e390 - e390. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.-e. Obata, Y. Kitta, H. Takano, Y. Kodama, T. Nakamura, A. Mende, K.-i. Kawabata, Y. Saitoh, D. Fujioka, T. Kobayashi, et al. Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation Aggravates Endothelial Vasomotor Dysfunction in the Infarct-Related Coronary Artery in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 2, 2007; 50(14): 1305 - 1309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Daemen and P. W. Serruys Drug-Eluting Stent Update 2007: Part II: Unsettled Issues Circulation, August 21, 2007; 116(8): 961 - 968. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Meier and C. Seiler Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 7, 2007; 50(6): 561 - 561. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Jaffe and B. H. Strauss Late and Very Late Thrombosis of Drug-Eluting Stents: Evolving Concepts and Perspectives J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 10, 2007; 50(2): 119 - 127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. V. Finn, G. Nakazawa, M. Joner, F. D. Kolodgie, E. K. Mont, H. K. Gold, and R. Virmani Vascular Responses to Drug Eluting Stents: Importance of Delayed Healing Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., July 1, 2007; 27(7): 1500 - 1510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Menichelli, A. Parma, E. Pucci, R. Fiorilli, F. De Felice, M. Nazzaro, A. Giulivi, D. Alborino, A. Azzellino, and R. Violini Randomized Trial of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 15, 2007; 49(19): 1924 - 1930. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. M. Howard-Alpe, J. de Bono, L. Hudsmith, W. P. Orr, P. Foex, and J. W. Sear Coronary artery stents and non-cardiac surgery Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2007; 98(5): 560 - 574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Ghatta, R. R. Tunstall, S. Kareem, M. Rahman, and S. T. O'Rourke Sirolimus Causes Relaxation of Human Vascular Smooth Muscle: A Novel Action of Sirolimus Mediated via ATP-Sensitive Potassium Channels J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., March 1, 2007; 320(3): 1204 - 1208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Meier, R. Zbinden, M. Togni, P. Wenaweser, S. Windecker, B. Meier, and C. Seiler Coronary Collateral Function Long After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 2, 2007; 49(1): 15 - 20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Zimarino, A. Ausiello, G. Contegiacomo, I. Riccardi, G. Renda, C. Di Iorio, and R. De Caterina Rapid Decline of Collateral Circulation Increases Susceptibility to Myocardial Ischemia: The Trade-Off of Successful Percutaneous Recanalization of Chronic Total Occlusions J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 4, 2006; 48(1): 59 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Tsimikas Drug-Eluting Stents and Late Adverse Clinical Outcomes: Lessons Learned, Lessons Awaited J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 16, 2006; 47(10): 2112 - 2115. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Togni and O. M. Hess Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 2, 2006; 47(9): 1912 - 1913. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Kipshidze and M. B. Leon Endothelial Dysfunction After Drug-Eluting Stent Was Never Predicted in Preclinical Studies J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 2, 2006; 47(9): 1911 - 1911. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Wheatcroft, J. Byrne, M. Thomas, and P. MacCarthy Life-Threatening Coronary Artery Spasm Following Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Deployment J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 2, 2006; 47(9): 1911 - 1912. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. J. Gomes and E. Buffolo Coronary stenting and inflammation: implications for further surgical and medical treatment. Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2006; 81(5): 1918 - 1925. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Wessely, A. Schomig, and A. Kastrati Sirolimus and Paclitaxel on Polymer-Based Drug-Eluting Stents: Similar But Different J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 21, 2006; 47(4): 708 - 714. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. H. Hofma, W. J. van der Giessen, B. M. van Dalen, P. A. Lemos, E. P. McFadden, G. Sianos, J. M.R. Ligthart, D. van Essen, P. J. de Feyter, and P. W. Serruys Indication of long-term endothelial dysfunction after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation Eur. Heart J., January 2, 2006; 27(2): 166 - 170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Lerman and E. Eeckhout Coronary endothelial dysfunction following sirolimus-eluting stent placement: should we worry about it? Eur. Heart J., January 2, 2006; 27(2): 125 - 126. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Serry and W. F. Penny Endothelial Dysfunction After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Placement J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 19, 2005; 46(2): 237 - 238. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||