Key result
Sirolimus and paclitaxel show distinct cell-cycle mechanisms that may explain differing neointimal growth patterns.
Why the study?
What are the molecular and cellular differences between sirolimus and paclitaxel drug-eluting stents that explain differences in neointimal growth?
What are the molecular and cellular differences between sirolimus and paclitaxel drug-eluting stents that explain differences in neointimal growth?
The distinct molecular mechanisms of cell cycle inhibition by sirolimus and paclitaxel provide a mechanistic explanation for the differing rates of neointimal growth seen with these drug-eluting stents in clinical practice.
Recent clinical studies that investigated the efficacy of the two U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms Cypher (Cordis, Johnson and Johnson, Miami Lakes, Florida) and Taxus (Boston Scientific, Boston, Massachusetts) suggest that there are differences between both DES concerning neointimal growth. Both DES elute compounds that inhibit the cell cycle, but at different stages: Cypher stents elute sirolimus, which induces G1 cell cycle inhibition, and Taxus stents release paclitaxel, which predominantly leads to M-phase arrest. In an attempt to explain the differences observed in human studies, the properties of these stent-based compounds on critical molecular and cellular events associated with the pathophysiology of in-stent restenosis are discussed in detail with the conclusion that both sirolimus and paclitaxel are different in their pleiotropic anti-restenotic effects. This may be in part responsible for the differences observed in recent clinical studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wessely et al. (2006) conducted a review in In-stent restenosis. Sirolimus and Paclitaxel drug-eluting stents was evaluated. Sirolimus and paclitaxel exhibit different pleiotropic anti-restenotic effects on the cell cycle, potentially explaining differences in neointimal growth observed in clinical studies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: