Key result
Transendocardial and retrograde coronary venous delivery systems showed comparable microsphere retention efficacy in healthy and infarcted pigs, though they targeted different myocardial areas.
Why the study?
Does transendocardial delivery compared to retrograde coronary venous delivery alter the retention and distribution of microspheres in healthy and infarcted pigs?
Does transendocardial delivery compared to retrograde coronary venous delivery alter the retention and distribution of microspheres in healthy and infarcted pigs?
Transendocardial and retrograde coronary venous delivery systems offer comparable retention efficacy but target different myocardial regions in a porcine model of myocardial infarction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pilot porcine data indicate both TE and RCV routes are feasible; leaves open optimal delivery for clinical myocardial therapeutics.
UNLABELLED: We compared two routes for myocardial delivery of therapeutics, transendocardial (TE) delivery with an intramyocardial injection catheter, and retrograde coronary venous (RCV) delivery with a balloon occlusion catheter in the interventricular vein. METHODS: TE and RCV injection of 15 microM, neutron-activatable microspheres was compared in healthy pigs (Group I, n = 3), pigs with a 1-week-old myocardial infarction (MI; group II, n = 5), and pigs with a 2-weeks-old MI (group III, n = 4). The MI was induced by a 1-hr balloon occlusion in the LAD. Both methods were compared in the same animal using different microspheres. The RCV catheter allowed for continuous measurement of distal pressure and 2.5 x 10(6) microspheres were injected in 10 ml at 300 mmHg above balloon occlusion pressure. The TE injections were targeted to the infarct zone and 2.5 x 10(6) microspheres were distributed over 10 injections of 200 microl. RESULTS: The retention of microspheres decreased with increase in MI age, but was comparable between devices within the groups. RCV delivery resulted in (14.3 +/- 0.9)% microsphere retention in Group I, (10.3 +/- 0.2)% in Group II, and (6.4 +/- 0.1)% in group III (P < 0.05 versus group I). Microsphere retention after TE was (15.1 +/- 0.7)% in group I, (18.9 +/- 0.6)% in group II, (4.1 +/- 0.1)% in Group III (P < 0.05 versus groups I and II). The RCV catheter delivered primarily to midventricular, antero-septal segments, whereas TE targeted apical areas predominantly. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery efficacy was comparable between devices in each group however RCV targeted midventricular areas whereas TE targeted apical areas.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baklanov et al. (2006) studied Myocardial infarction (n=12). Transendocardial (TE) delivery vs. Retrograde coronary venous (RCV) delivery was evaluated on Retention of microspheres. Transendocardial and retrograde coronary venous delivery systems showed comparable microsphere retention efficacy in healthy and infarcted pigs, though they targeted different myocardial areas.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: