Japanese Journal of Radiology

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 340–346 | Cite as

Neointimal hyperplasia after stent placement across size-discrepant vessels in an animal study

  • Hisayuki Cho
  • Mineyoshi Nango
  • Yukimasa Sakai
  • Etsuji Sohgawa
  • Ken Kageyama
  • Shinichi Hamamoto
  • Toshiaki Kitayama
  • Akira Yamamoto
  • Yukio Miki
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

To examine differences in neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) after placing a self-expanding (SE) stent across size-discrepant vessels.

Materials and methods

The subjects were 6 beagles, and the target vessels were the abdominal aorta and the external iliac artery (EIA). A nitinol SE stent was placed which was normal-sized in the aorta and oversized in the EIA. Angiography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) were performed immediately and after 1 and 3 months; histopathologic examinations were then performed. Furthermore, the chronic outward force (COF) on the same type of stent was investigated in vitro.

Results

On IVUS, thickened intima was seen on the EIA at 1 month (5.1 ± 4.2 mm2) and at 3 months (7.8 ± 2.5 mm2). For the aorta, thickening of the intima was negligible at any time. Histopathologically, the percentage of the vessel obliterated by NIH was significantly greater on the iliac side than on the aortic side (33.2 ± 10.4 vs. 13.4 ± 4.4 %). The COF exerted when stent diameter reached that of the EIA and the aorta was 0.73 and 0.17 N/mm2, respectively.

Conclusions

When a non-tapered stent is placed in vessels with a large discrepancy in diameter, attention must be paid to increased NIH in the oversized side.

Keywords

Neointimal hyperplasia Self-expanding stent Size-discrepant vessels Experimental study 

Abbreviations

SE

Self-expanding

PAD

Peripheral arterial disease

EIA

External iliac artery

ICA

Internal carotid artery

CCA

Common carotid artery

IVUS

Intravascular ultrasound

COF

Chronic outward force

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We obtained valuable advice from Dr Craig Kolodziej. We thank Mr Shinji Yamada, Mr Yuki Kaji, and Mr Yuta Ogura for technical support during this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Soga Y, Yokoi H, Urakawa T, Tosaka A, Iwabuchi M, Nobuyoshi M. Long-term clinical outcome after endovascular treatment in patients with intermittent claudication due to iliofemoral artery disease. Circ J. 2010;74(8):1689–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ricco JB, Probst H. Long-term results of a multicenter randomized study on direct versus crossover bypass for unilateral iliac artery occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47(1):45–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maurel B, Lancelevee J, Jacobi D, et al. Endovascular treatment of external iliac artery stenoses for claudication with systematic stenting. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23(6):722–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferreira M, Lanziotti L, Monteiro M, et al. Superficial femoral artery recanalization with self-expanding nitinol stents: long-term follow-up results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;34(6):702–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ban DT, Chaer RA, Rhee RY, et al. Endovascular interventions for TASC II D femoropopliteal lesions. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51(6):1406–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winslow RD, Sharma SK, Kim MC. Restenosis and drug-eluting stents. Mt Sinai J Med. 2005;72(2):81–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peng HY, Chen M, Zheng B. Long-term effects of novel biodegradable, polymer-coated, sirolimus-eluting stents on neointimal formation in a porcine coronary model. Int Heart J. 2009;50(6):811–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaneda H, Ikeno F, Lyons J, et al. Long-term histopathologic and IVUS evaluations of a novel coiled sheet stent in porcine carotid arteries. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2006;29(3):413–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hofma SH, Whelan DMC, van Beusekom HMM. Increasing arterial wall injury after long-term implantation of two types of stent in a porcine coronary model. Eur Heart J. 1998;19(4):601–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallo R, Padurean A, Toschi V, et al. Prolonged thrombin inhibition reduces restenosis after balloon angioplasty in porcine coronary arteries. Circulation. 1998;97(6):581–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cha SH, Han MH, Choi YH, et al. Vascular responses in normal canine carotid arteries—comparison between various self-expanding stents of the same unconstrained size. Invest Radiol. 2003;38(2):95–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kirsch EC, Khangure MS, Morling P, et al. Oversizing of self-expanding stents: influence on the development of neointimal hyperplasia of the carotid artery in a canine model. Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23(1):121–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ormiston JA, Webber B, Webster MW, et al. Stent longitudinal integrity bench insights into a clinical problem. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(12):1310–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schürmann K, Mahnken A, Meyer J, et al. Long-term results 10 years after iliac arterial stent placement. Radiology. 2002;224(3):731–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schillinger M, Sabeti S, Loewe C, et al. Balloon angioplasty versus implantation of nitinol stents in the superficial femoral artery. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(18):1879–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Higashida RT, Meyers PM, Phatouros CC, et al. Reporting standards for carotid artery angioplasty and stent placement (reprinted from J Vasc Interv Radiol vol 15, pg E1–E24, 2004). J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(7):S349–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wholey MH, Jarmolowski CR, Wholey M, et al. Carotid artery stent placement—ready for prime time? J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vorwerk D, Redha F, Neuerburg J, et al. Neointima formation following arterial placement of self-expanding stents of different radial force: experimental results. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 1994;17(1):27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao HQ, Nikanorov A, Virmani R, et al. Late stent expansion and neointimal proliferation of oversized nitinol stents in peripheral arteries. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2009;32(4):720–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berry JL, Manoach E, Mekkaoui C, et al. Hemodynamics and wall mechanics of a compliance matching stent: in vitro and in vivo analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(1):97–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duerig TW, Tolomeo DE, Wholey M. An overview of superelastic stent design. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2000;9(3–4):235–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Voûte MT, Hendriks JM, van Laanen JH. Radial force measurements in carotid stents: influence of stent design and length of the lesion. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(5):661–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yokoyama T, Miyauchi K, Kurata T, Satoh H, Daida H. Inhibitory efficacy of pitavastatin on the early inflammatory response and neointimal thickening in a porcine coronary after stenting. Atherosclerosis. 2004;174(2):253–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hisayuki Cho
    • 2
  • Mineyoshi Nango
    • 3
  • Yukimasa Sakai
    • 1
  • Etsuji Sohgawa
    • 1
  • Ken Kageyama
    • 4
  • Shinichi Hamamoto
    • 1
  • Toshiaki Kitayama
    • 5
  • Akira Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Yukio Miki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyOsaka City University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyJapan Community Health care Organization Osaka HospitalOsakaJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyYodogawa Christian HospitalOsakaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Medical OncologyThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyOtemae HospitalOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations