Differences in Biologic Drug Effects and Distal Particulate Embolization in Three Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Femoropopliteal Lesions in a Rabbit Model

Abstract

Background:

A recent meta-analysis of randomized control trials demonstrated a significantly higher risk of major amputation in patients treated with drug-coated balloons (DCBs) compared with standard treatment, especially in high-dose paclitaxel-coated DCBs. Distal particulate embolization after DCB use was considered a potential cause of the higher incidence of major amputation. The current study aimed to histologically and biologically compare biologic drug effect and distal particulate embolization in 3 DCBs (a high-dose paclitaxel-coated DCB [IN.PACT Admiral] and 2 low-dose paclitaxel-coated DCBs [Ranger and Lutonix]).

Methods and Results:

The DCBs were inflated in the healthy descending aortas of 18 rabbits, followed by euthanasia 28 days after the procedure. The treated descending aorta and distal skeletal muscles were histopathologically evaluated, and paclitaxel concentrations were measured. The paclitaxel concentration of the treated lesion was highest for Ranger, followed by IN.PACT and Lutonix (Ranger vs IN.PACT vs Lutonix: 1089 [745–2170] pmol/mg vs 638 [160–2075] pmol/mg vs 25 [10–304] pmol/mg, respectively; p<0.0001). In the histopathological evaluation, the angle of severe medial smooth muscle cell loss was largest for Ranger followed by IN.PACT and Lutonix (12.8 [8.0–20.4] degree vs 1.4 [1.2–5.2] degree vs 0.8 [0.5–2.5] degree, respectively), with significant differences for Ranger vs IN.PACT (p=0.007) and Ranger vs Lutonix (p=0.002). However, paclitaxel concentrations of distal skeletal muscles were lowest for Lutonix, followed by Ranger and IN.PACT (12 [1–58] pmol/mg vs 15 [13–21] pmol/mg vs 42 [19–108] pmol/mg, respectively, p<0.0001). The numbers of arteries with downstream DCB effects were highest for IN.PACT, followed by Ranger and Lutonix (Ranger vs IN.PACT vs Lutonix, 3 [3–4] vs 4 [3–7] vs 2 [1–2], respectively), which was consistent with the measured tissue paclitaxel concentrations.

Conclusion:

These findings suggest that Ranger demonstrates the strongest paclitaxel effect, as well as the second-best effect regarding distal particulate embolization, making it a good treatment option for patients with peripheral artery disease among the 3 DCBs evaluated in the current study. Further clinical head-to-head comparisons with larger numbers of patients are needed to explore which DCB is the most effective and safe treatment option.Clinical Impact:

The findings of the current preclinical study suggests that Ranger demonstrates the strongest paclitaxel effect, as well as the second-best effect regarding distal particulate embolization making it a good treatment for patients with intermittent claudication and chronic limb-threatening ischemia.