Therapeutic revascularisation of ischaemic tissue. The opportunities and challenges for therapy using vascular stem/ progenitor cells

Ischaemia-related diseases such as peripheral artery disease and coronary heart disease constitute a major issue in medicine as they affect millions of individuals each year and represent a considerable economic burden to healthcare systems. If the underlying ischaemia is not sufficiently resolved it can lead to tissue damage, with subsequent cell death. Treating such diseases remains difficult and several strategies have been used to stimulate the growth of blood vessels and promote regeneration of ischaemic tissues, such as the use of recombinant proteins and gene therapy. Although these approaches remain promising, they have limitations and results from clinical trials using these methods have had limited success. Recently, there has been growing interest in the therapeutic potential of using a cell-based approach to treat vasodegenerative disorders. In vascular medicine, various stem cells and adult progenitors have been highlighted as having a vasoreparative role in ischaemic tissues. This review will examine the clinical potential of several stem and progenitor cells that may be utilised to regenerate defunct or damaged vasculature and restore blood flow to the ischaemic tissue. In particular, we focus on the therapeutic potential of endothelial progenitor cells as an exciting new option for the treatment of ischaemic diseases. © 2012 BioMed Central Ltd

Should intentional endovascular stent-graft coverage of the left subclavian artery be preceded by prophylactic revascularisation?

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a promising therapeutic alternative to conventional open aortic replacement but it requires suitable proximal and distal landing zones for stent-graft anchoring. Many aortic pathologies affect in the immediate proximity of the left subclavian artery (LSA) limiting the proximal landing zone site without proximal vessel coverage. In patients in whom the distance between the LSA and aortic lesion is too short, extension of the landing zone can be obtained by covering the LSA's origin with the endovascular stent graft (ESG). This manoeuvre has the potential for immediate and delayed neurological and vascular symptoms. Some authors, therefore, propose prophylactic revascularisation of the LSA by transposition or bypass, while others suggest prophylactic revascularisation only under certain conditions, and still others see no requirement for prophylactic revascularisation in anticipation of LSA ostium coverage. In this review about LSA revascularisation in TEVAR patients with coverage of the LSA, we searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE historically until the end date of May 2010 with the search terms left subclavian artery, covering, endovascular, revascularisation and thoracic aorta. We have gathered the most complete scientific evidence available used to support the various concepts to deal with this issue. After a review of the current available literature, 23 relevant articles were found, where we have identified and analysed three basic treatment concepts for LSA revascularisation in TEVAR patients (prophylactic, conditional prophylactic and no prophylactic LSA revascularisation). The available evidence supports prophylactic revascularisation of the LSA before ESG LSA coverage when preoperative imaging reveals abnormal supra-aortic vascular anatomy or pathology. We further conclude that elective patients undergoing planned coverage of the LSA during TEVAR should receive prophylactic LSA transposition or LSA-to-left-common-carotid-artery (LCCA) bypass surgery to prevent severe neurological complications, such as paraplegia or brain stem infarction.

Chapter VI: Follow-up after revascularisation

Structured follow-up after revascularisation for chronic critical limb ischaemia (CLI) aims at sustained treatment success and continued best patient care. Thereby, efforts need to address three fundamental domains: (A) best medical therapy, both to protect the arterial reconstruction locally and to reduce atherosclerotic burden systemically; (B) surveillance of the arterial reconstruction; and (C) timely initiation of repeat interventions. As most CLI patients are elderly and frail, sustained resolution of CLI and preserved ambulatory capacity may decide over independent living and overall prognosis. Despite this importance, previous guidelines have largely ignored follow-up after CLI; arguably because of a striking lack of evidence and because of a widespread assumption that, in the context of CLI, efficacy of initial revascularisation will determine prognosis during the short remaining life expectancy. This chapter of the current CLI guidelines aims to challenge this disposition and to recommend evidentially best clinical practice by critically appraising available evidence in all of the above domains, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy, clinical surveillance, use of duplex ultrasound, and indications for and preferred type of repeat interventions for failing and failed reconstructions. However, as corresponding studies are rarely performed among CLI patients specifically, evidence has to be consulted that derives from expanded patient populations. Therefore, most recommendations are based on extrapolations or subgroup analyses, which leads to an almost systematic degradation of their strength. Endovascular reconstruction and surgical bypass are considered separately, as are specific contexts such as diabetes or renal failure; and critical issues are highlighted throughout to inform future studies.

Impact of atrial fibrillation on clinical outcomes among patients with coronary artery disease undergoing revascularisation with drug-eluting stents

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are major determinants of morbidity and mortality. A combined treatment with antiplatelet agents and vitamin K antagonists limits the risk of stent thrombosis and stroke while increasing the rate of bleeding. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES).

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: A novel stent platform eluting biolimus, a sirolimus analogue, from a biodegradable polymer showed promising results in preliminary studies. We compared the safety and efficacy of a biolimus-eluting stent (with biodegradable polymer) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (with durable polymer). METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, assessor-blind, non-inferiority study in ten European centres. 1707 patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were centrally randomised by a computer-generated allocation sequence to treatment with either biolimus-eluting (n=857) or sirolimus-eluting (n=850) stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation within 9 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. 427 patients were randomly allocated to angiographic follow-up, with in-stent percentage diameter stenosis as principal outcome measure at 9 months. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. FINDINGS: We analysed all randomised patients. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for the primary endpoint at 9 months (79 [9%] patients vs 89 [11%], rate ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.64-1.19], p for non-inferiority=0.003, p for superiority=0.39). Frequency of cardiac death (14 [1.6%] vs 21 [2.5%], p for superiority=0.22), myocardial infarction (49 [5.7%] vs 39 [4.6%], p=0.30), and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (38 [4.4%] vs 47 [5.5%], p=0.29) were similar for both stent types. 168 (79%) patients in the biolimus-eluting group and 167 (78%) in the sirolimus-eluting group had data for angiographic follow-up available. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (20.9%vs 23.3%, difference -2.2% [95% CI -6.0 to 1.6], p for non-inferiority=0.001, p for superiority=0.26). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer represents a safe and effective alternative to a stent eluting sirolimus from a durable polymer in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. FUNDING: Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

Revascularisation of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is becoming increasingly prevalent and magnifies the risk of cardiovascular complications. Endothelial dysfunction caused by oxidative stress is a hallmark of diabetes and is responsible for the ubiquitous manifestations of vascular disease in diabetics. Compared with non-diabetic patients, coronary artery disease is more severe and the clinical outcome impaired in diabetic patients undergoing revascularisation. Despite these limitations the benefit of revascularisation therapy is particularly pronounced in diabetics. The optimal revascularisation strategy (coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease depends on clinical and anatomical considerations.

Coronary revascularisation in patients with diabetes: a chance to be better

Commentary on: Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularisation in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2375–84.

Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease. DESIGN Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease. DATA SOURCES Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE All cause mortality. RESULTS 100 trials in 93 553 patients with 262 090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment. CONCLUSION Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.