ArticleCardiovascular engineering and technology2025
The Impact of Peripheral Vascular Motion on Acute Drug Retention of Intravascular Devices.
Article in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis goal of this study was to determine the impact of vascular motion on acute drug transfer and retention of drug-coated balloons (DCB) or drug-eluting stents (DES).
methodsCommercially available paclitaxel DCBs (Lutonix & IN.PACT) and a paclitaxel DES (Zilver) were subjected to physiological flow and vascular motion conditions using a peripheral-simulating benchtop bioreactor system. Each DCB- or DES-treated artery was subjected to three sets of movement parameters including pulsatile flow with no twisting/bending (P1), pulsatile flow with 16.8° twist, 25° bend and 3.2 mm compression (P2), and pulsatile flow with 68° twist, 35° bend, 21 mm compression (P3). After 24 h, the treated segments were removed and paclitaxel concentrations were measured using pharmacokinetic analysis.
resultsIn the group of arteries treated with the Lutonix DCB, there was a significant decrease in arterial paclitaxel concentrations between the P1 and both the P2 and P3 moving parameters (P1 = 404 ± 195 ng/mg, P2 = 14.9 ± 9.92 ng/mg, P3 = 19.2 ± 15.4 ng/mg; P1-P2 p = 0.007, P1-P3 p = 0.005). For the IN.PACT DCB group, no differences in the mean arterial paclitaxel concentrations were observed for the various movements (p = 0.55). Lastly, in the Zilver DES group, differences were only measured between the P2 and P3 moving parameters (P2 = 84.8 ± 32.7 ng/mg, P3 = 0.11 ± 0.06 ng/mg; P2-P3 p = 0.01).
conclusionAcute retention of arterial paclitaxel levels can be adversely impacted by vascular movement in both DES- and DCB- treated arteries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.