Key result
TCV-116 significantly reduced neointimal area in balloon-injured dog arteries compared to placebo (0.21 vs 0.51 mm2).
Why the study?
Does TCV-116 prevent neointima formation in dogs with balloon catheter-injured arteries?
Does TCV-116 prevent neointima formation in dogs with balloon catheter-injured arteries?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.21% vs 0.51%
TCV-116, an angiotensin II antagonist, significantly prevents neointima formation following balloon catheter arterial injury in a canine model.
May support human restenosis trials of angiotensin II antagonists; leaves open translation beyond this canine model.
We investigated the effect of an angiotensin (Ang) II antagonist, (+/-)-1-(cyclohexyloxycarbonyloxy)-ethyl 2-ethoxy- 1- [[2'-(1H-tetrazol-5-yl)biphenyl-4-yl]methyl]- 1H-benzimidazole-7-carboxylate (TCV-116), on neointima formation in dog artery injured by a balloon catheter. Dogs were orally treated with 10 mg/kg TCV-116 or placebo twice a day for 5 weeks. After treatment with these drugs for 1 week, the right carotid artery was injured by a balloon catheter. The left carotid artery was regarded as the control. In the group treated with placebo, neointima formation in the injured arteries was observed. The activities of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) and chymase in the injured carotid arteries were increased 2.56- and 3.26-fold compared with those in the non-injured arteries, respectively. The neointimal area in dogs treated with placebo and TCV-116 were 0.51 +/-0.07 and 0.21 +/-0.07 mm2, respectively, and this difference was significant. In conclusion, an Ang II antagonist, TCV-116, prevented neointima formation by blocking the action of Ang II generated by both ACE and chymase in the injured arteries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mizuo et al. (1999) studied Neointima formation in injured arteries. TCV-116 vs. placebo was evaluated on neointimal area. TCV-116 significantly reduced neointimal area in balloon-injured dog arteries compared to placebo (0.21 vs 0.51 mm2).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: