Nanotechnology in Cardiology View PDF

*Qiaoyun Zheng
Clinical And Bioanalytical Chemistry, National Institutes Of Health, United States

*Corresponding Author:
Qiaoyun Zheng
Clinical And Bioanalytical Chemistry, National Institutes Of Health, United States
Email:cheriezheng1@gmail.com

Published on: 2020-05-21

Abstract

Atherosclerotic stenosis are reduced by a single or a sequence of balloon angioplasties to zero or minimal grades of residual stenosis. Stents are currently being inserted to avoid immediate vascular rebound, and the elution from the stent struts of an anti-mitotic drug minimizes restenosis. The undesirable side effect of this drug elution is delayed re-endothelialization, which in many cases involves treatment with two antiplatelet medications for at least a year to avoid acute in-stent thrombosis. Advances in stent design and drug elution technology have not diminished this problem, now in its fourth generation.

Keywords

Atherosclerotic Stenosis; Cardiology; Nanotechnology

Introduction

Atherosclerotic stenosis are reduced by a single or a sequence of balloon angioplasties to zero or minimal grades of residual stenosis. Stents are currently being inserted to avoid immediate vascular rebound, and the elution from the stent struts of an anti-mitotic drug minimizes restenosis. The undesirable side effect of this drug-elution is delayed re-endothelialization, which in many cases involves treatment with two antiplatelet medications for at least a year to avoid acute in-stent thrombosis. Advances in stent design and drug elution technology have not diminished this problem, now in its fourth generation. Local drug distribution relying on nanotechnology has the ability to avoid restenosis while failing to hinder endothelial repairing. The goal of molecularly focused medications in the injured media and adventitia may be to bind exclusively to epitopes. Endothelial repairing can thus advance unhindered. This innovation can be used with bare metal or biologically degradable stents to avoid restenosis. This article will analyze novel nanoparticulate agents about their ability to transmit drugs to molecular targets within the vascular wall. Potential molecular targets, pathways regulated, propensities for drug delivery, and biocompatibility will be studied. After coronary angioplasty and stent insertion, the restenosis reaction is affected by the mechanical damage through angioplasty [1], inflammatory responses [2], and endothelial cure [3]. Prevention of vascular thrombosis and restenosis are therefore paramount factors that determine the long-term success of cardiovascular stent implantation. Thrombosis and restenosis tend to be distinct pathologies with the former caused by endothelial injury and the reaction to restenosis affected by media and adventitia severe over-stretch damage. Present stents [4] eluting the drug reduce the reaction to restenosis at the risk of prolonged endothelial cure. As a result, the use of dual antiplatelet agents for a minimum period of one year will avoid in-stent thrombosis. Nonetheless, after stent placement, acute stent thrombosis has been identified for up to and above 4 years [5-7]. Thus, therapy with dual platelet agents is often prescribed for periods well beyond one year. Although this is the best medical choice currently available, and therefore the quality of care, it leaves many areas of future change. To sum up, an ideal drug/agent used during angioplasty to avoid restenosis should be antiproliferative, anti-migratory, anti-inflammatory, and pro-healing. Thus, restenosis reaction should be strictly inhibited, i.e. duplication of SMC is largely inhibited. Its period of operation does not excessively extend the "cause" cycle of restenosis. It should also be non-toxic to adventitia and endothelium, i.e. it should not delay endothelial cure and restoration of endothelial function. It will not, lastly, have systemic consequences. Systemic drug delivery has shown some effectiveness in decreasing restenosis following balloon angioplasty and implantation of coronary stent [8,9]. Nonetheless, systemic delivery is inefficient in most cases [10] and causes side effects in significant measure [11,12]. Systemic pharmacotherapy failure is due to insufficient concentration of local tissue at systemic doses of the respective biologic agent that can be safely administered to the patient. Those criteria offer a basis for supplying local medicines. At first, it measured porous balloons and microporous balloons for this mission. These instruments supplied drugs [13], antisense oligodeoxynuleotides [14], adenoviral vectors [15] and also nanoparticulate agents [16,17] in animal models. The efficiency of delivery of porous balloon drugs varies greatly between various devices [18], the agents delivered [19], and the size of these particles in the case of nanoparticles [20]. The observation that high distribution pressures and large amounts of perfused solutions can cause severe vascular damage and thus increase intimate thickening is a drawback [17]. Problems with vascular barotrauma are linked to the type of injection, the strength of the infusion, the agents used, and the size and state of the treated vessel [21,22]. Therefore, non-homogeneous local distribution, as well as unavoidable systemic distribution, remain issues. With each new compound checked, all these specifications have to be validated which makes this technology cumbersome. However, in a small group of patients with coronary artery disease using the Infiltrator catheter [23], local delivery of an antisense phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomer (AVI-4126) has been effective. Although restenosis in human coronary arteries has been shown to decrease the drug, the balloon catheter could not be advanced into the lesion in 8 out of 44 patients and 6 coronary artery dissections occurred in the 25 patients in which the balloon was inflated. Those tools have not achieved broad clinical use due to these complications and concerns. Some other explanation for using specific agents is that even though the local distribution of non-targeted substances is optimized via a porous balloon, most of the molecules are administered to the vasa vasorum and periadvential microvasculature with considerably fewer media and intima transmission [24].

Various drugs evaluated in vitro and animal models for their capability to resist or manage restenosis. These medications can be divided into many categories based on their aims: anti-platelet and anti-thrombotic agents (e.g. dipyridamole, heparin, aspirin; anti-proliferative and cytostatic agents; anti-inflammatory agents; antagonists in the growth factor; antagonists in the angiotensin II receptor; blockers and vasodilators in the calcium channel [25]. Several drugs have shown some promise in cell culture and animal models, clinical trials [26-28] have met with minimal to no promise in others. This success has been related to many variables, along with inadequate drug hitting the target cells in the artery wall, adverse side effects at effective dosing rates, and patient compliance difficulties [29]. Often, timing and administrative efficiency are critical [30]. Consistent local administration of medicines like heparin can prevent restenosis while sporadic administration can worsen the disease [30]. By administering the drug at the place of vascular damage, local therapy is intended to lessen the amount of medication required and decrease side effects, thus enhancing clinical effectiveness. One local delivery technique is the drug-eluting stent, which was established over the past 20 years and is now a common procedure [31,32]. Such stents have greatly decreased the restenosis rate to less than 10 percent when filled with anti-proliferative substances. There are still concerns with the use of drug-eluting stents, along with an increased occurrence of prolonged thrombotic incidents, safety issues, and the inadequacy of stents for certain anatomical positions or circumstances [32]. Drug delivery dependent on nanoparticles is an evolving strategy capable of revolutionizing anti-restenotic therapies [33]. Nanoparticles are classified as 1-100 nm in size scale, while they usually expand to a few hundred nm. Their peculiar physicochemical characteristics have led to nanoparticles being investigated in a broad variety of biomedical purposes, such as biosensing, imaging, and drug delivery [33]. Potential vectors for anti-restenotic drug delivery contain organic (e.g. polymers, liposomes, and proteins) and inorganic nanoparticles, as mentioned in the following. This integration of anti-restenotic medicines into nanoparticles can be shielded from enzymatic degradation, aimed at the site of the injury and delivered gradually, thereby conceding them to act for extended periods and with increased therapeutic effect. Restenosis is a key concern in the diagnosis of atherosclerosis by surgery. It is a biological multi-stage cycle where vascular SMCs play a crucial role in the production of neointimal thickening, while re-endothelialization of the wounded artery wall is essential to restrict this cycle. Despite proven effectiveness in animal models, there has been little progress in minimizing medical restenosis through systematic delivery of medications to prevent or treat restenosis. The drug-eluting stent is the existing gold standard for percutaneous coronary intervention but there are significant long-term protection and efficacy issues. Following some progress in clinical studies utilizing polymers and liposomes, there are health issues that should be given serious consideration. At the other side, there are many essential characteristics of inorganic nanomaterials such as LDHs, TiO2 and magnetic nanoparticles that indicate their potential for biomedical technologies such as continuous and targeted drug delivery. There are, though, very few research or clinical trials on procedures for restenosis of inorganic nanoparticles. Given the benefits of inorganic nanoparticles as drug distributors, greater measures should be taken to explore the use of these substances for the distribution of antirestenotic drugs. It is also important to identify the medication to be administered to adequately avoid or cure restenosis. To present most research has used drugs that prevent SMC proliferation to prevent neointimal production. While the neointima grows primarily as a result of SMC proliferation and movement, many considerations like the significance of the damaged artery's re-endothelialization should never be overlooked. Thus, the secret to effective anti-restenotic treatments lies in designing approaches to encourage endothelial regeneration while reducing the replication of SMC at the time. A significant breakthrough in restenosis avoidance or diagnosis will be the advancement of drug delivery mechanisms that resolve the various restenosis-related biological processes and stay in the artery wall for a substantial period. The use of selective inorganic nanoparticles to release one or more anti-restenotic medicines is a promising possible solution to the question of post-angioplastic neointimal formation and restenosis.

References

  1. Schwartz RS, Huber KC, Murphy JG, Edwards WD, Camrud AR, et al. (1992) Restenosis and the proportional neointimal response to coronary artery injury: results in a porcine model. J Am Coll Cardiol 19:267-274.https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(92)90476-4
  2. Alfonso F, Zueco J, Cequier A, Mantilla R, Bethencourt A, et al. (2003) A randomized comparison ofrepeat stenting with balloon angioplasty in patients with in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:796-805.https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(03)00852-0
  3. Finn AV, Nakazawa G, Joner M, Kolodgie FD, Mont EK, et al. (2007) Vascular responses to drug eluting stents: importance of delayed healing. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 27:1500-1510.https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.107.144220
  4. Brodie B, Pokharel Y, Fleishman N, Bensimhon A, Kissling G, et al. (2011) Very late stent thrombosis after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a 15-year single-center experience. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv 4:30-38.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.11.004
  5. Di Lorenzo E, Sauro R, Varricchio A, Capasso M, Lanzillo T, et al. (2009) Benefits of drug-eluting stents as compared to bare metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: four year results of the PaclitAxel or Sirolimus-Eluting stent vs bare metal stent in primary angiOplasty (PASEO) randomized trial. Am Heart J 158:e43-e50.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2009.03.016
  6. Chhatriwalla AK, Cam A, Unzek S, Bhatt DL, Raymond RE, et al.(2009) Drug-eluting stent fracture and acute coronary syndrome. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 10:166-171.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2009.02.003
  7. Nakazawa G, Finn AV, Vorpahl M, Ladich ER, Kolodgie FD, et al. (2011) Coronary responses and differential mechanisms of late stent thrombosis attributed to first-generation sirolimus-and paclitaxel-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 57:390-398.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.066
  8. Ueda H, Kido A, Matsuhisa S, Asawa K, Yoshida N, et al. (2016) Addition of cilostazol to aspirin therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A randomized, open-label trial. Am Heart J 173:134-142.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2015.12.014
  9. Inoue T, Uchida T, Sakuma M, Imoto Y, Ozeki Y, et al. (2004) Cilostazol inhibits leukocyte integrin Mac-1, leading to a potential reduction in restenosis after coronary stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:1408-1414.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.066
  10. Anderson JL, Muhlestein JB (2004) Antibiotic trials for coronary heart disease. Tex Heart Inst J 31:33.
  11. Rosanio S, Tocchi M, Patterson C, Runge MS (1999) Preventionof restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions: the medical approach. Thrombo Haemost 82: 164-170.https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1615577
  12. Landzberg BR, Frishman WH, Lerrick K (1997) Pathophysiology and pharmacological approaches for prevention of coronary artery restenosis following coronary artery balloon angioplasty and related procedures. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 39:361-398.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-0620(97)80034-5
  13. Oberhoff M, Kunert W, Herdeg C, Küttner A, Kranzhöfer A, et al. (2001) Inhibition of smooth muscle cell proliferation after local drug delivery of the antimitotic drug paclitaxel using a porous balloon catheter. Bas Res Cardiol 96:275-282.https://doi.org/10.1007/s003950170058
  14. Villa AE, Guzman LA, Poptic EJ, Labhasetwar V, D’Souza S, et al. (1995) Effects of antisense c-myb oligonucleotides on vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and response to vessel wall injury. Circul Res 76:505-513.https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.76.4.505
  15. Luo Z, Palasis M, Yamakawa M, Liu LX, Vincent KA, et al. (2004) Catheter?mediated delivery of adenoviral vectors expressing β?adrenergic receptor kinase C?terminus inhibits intimal hyperplasia and luminal stenosis in rabbit iliac arteries. J Gene Med 6:1061-1068.https://doi.org/10.1002/jgm.592
  16. Barr E, Carroll J, Kalynych AM, Tripathy SK, Kozarsky K, et al. (1994) Efficient catheter-mediated gene transfer into the heart using replication-defective adenovirus. Gene Ther 1:51-58.
  17. Varenne O, Gerard RD, Sinnaeve P, Gillijns H, Collen D, et al. (1999) Percutaneous adenoviral gene transfer into porcine coronary arteries: is catheter-based gene delivery adapted to coronary circulation?. Human Gene Ther 10:1105-1115.https://doi.org/10.1089/10430349950018102
  18. Karanian JW, Peregoy JA, Chiesa OA, Murray TL, Ahn C, et al. (2010) Efficiency of drug delivery to the coronary arteries in swine is dependent on the route of administration: Assessment of luminal, intimal, and adventitial coronary artery and venous delivery methods. J Vasc Interven Radiol 21:1555-1564.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.05.030
  19. Labhasetwar V, Song C, Levy RJ (1997) Nanoparticle drug delivery system for restenosis. Adv Drug Del Rev 24:63-85.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-409X(96)00483-8
  20. Westedt U, Barbu-Tudoran L, Schaper A, Kalinowski M, Alfke H, et al. (2002) Deposition of nanoparticles in the arterial vessel by porous balloon catheters: Localization by confocal laser scanning microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. AAPS PharmSci 4:206-211.https://doi.org/10.1208/ps040441
  21. Herdeg C, Oberhoff M, Baumbach A, Haase KK, Horch B, et al. (1997) Local drug delivery with porous balloons in the rabbit: assessment of vascular injury for an improvement of application parameters. Catheter Cardiovasc Diag 41:308-314.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0304(199707)41:3<308::AID-CCD12>3.0.CO;2-J
  22. Brieger D, Topol E (1997) Local drug delivery systems and prevention of restenosis. Cardiovasc Res 35:405-413.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6363(97)00155-7
  23. Von der Leyen HE, Mügge A, Hanefeld C, Hamm CW, Rau M, et al. (2011) A prospective, single-blind, multicenter, dose escalation study of intracoronary iNOS lipoplex (CAR-MP583) gene therapy for the prevention of restenosis in patients with de novo or restenotic coronary artery lesion (REGENT I extension). Human Gene Ther 22:951-958.https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2010.161
  24. Nasser TK, Wilensky RL, Mehdi K, March KL (1996) Microparticle deposition in periarterial microvasculature and intramural dissections after porous balloon delivery into atherosclerotic vessels: Quantitation and localization by confocal scanning laser microscopy. Am Heart J 131:892-898.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8703(96)90170-2
  25. Gu Z, E Rolfe B, C Thomas A, Ping Xu Z (2013) Restenosis treatments using nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems. Curr Pharmaceu Des 19:6330-6339.https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612811319350009
  26. Law RE, Meehan WP, Xi XP, Graf K, Wuthrich DA, et al. (1996) Troglitazone inhibits vascular smooth muscle cell growth and intimal hyperplasia. J Clin Invest98:1897-1905.https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI118991
  27. Brooks G, La Thangue NB (1999) The cell cycle and drug discovery: the promise and the hope. Drug Disc Today 4:455-464.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(99)01400-2
  28. Harker LA (1987) Role of platelets and thrombosis in mechanisms of acute occlusion and restenosis after angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 60:20-28.https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(87)90479-6
  29. Yin RX, Yang DZ, Wu JZ (2014) Nanoparticle drug-and gene-elutingstents for the prevention and treatment of coronary restenosis. Theranostics 4:175.https://dx.doi.org/10.7150/thno.7210
  30. Edelman ER, Karnovsky MJ (1994) Basic Science Reports Contrasting Effects of the Intermittent and Continuous Administration of Heparin in Experimental Restenosis. Circulation 89:770-776.https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.89.2.770
  31. Kirtane AJ, Gupta A, Iyengar S, Moses JW, Leon MB, et al. (2009) Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents: comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies. InDatabase of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.826479
  32. Garg S, Serruys PW (2010) Coronary stents: current status. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:S1-S42.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.06.007
  33. Salata OV (2004) Applications of nanoparticles in biology and medicine. J Nanobiotechnol 2:3.https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-3155-2-3
scroll up