Three catheter-based strategies for cardiac delivery of therapeutic gelatin microspheres

Gelatin hydrogel microspheres (GHMs) have been reported as novel non-viral vectors for gene or protein delivery (GHM therapy). However, the components of an effective catheter-based delivery strategy for GHM therapy are unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of three catheter-based strategies for c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gene therapy 2006-09, Vol.13 (18), p.1320-1327
Hauptverfasser: Hoshino, K, Kimura, T, De Grand, A M, Yoneyama, R, Kawase, Y, Houser, S, Ly, H Q, Kushibiki, T, Furukawa, Y, Ono, K, Tabata, Y, Frangioni, J V, Kita, T, Hajjar, R J, Hayase, M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Gelatin hydrogel microspheres (GHMs) have been reported as novel non-viral vectors for gene or protein delivery (GHM therapy). However, the components of an effective catheter-based delivery strategy for GHM therapy are unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of three catheter-based strategies for cardiac GHM therapy: (1) antegrade injection (AI) via coronary arteries; (2) retrograde injection (RI) via coronary veins; and (3) direct myocardial injection (DI) via the coronary sinus. AI distributed microspheres homogeneously throughout the target area with 73±11% retention. RI scattered microspheres non-homogenously with 22±8% retention. DI distributed microspheres in the needle-advanced area with 47±14% retention. However, despite high efficiency, AI did not show biological effects of inducing angiogenesis from basic fibroblast growth factor bound to GHMs. Furthermore, focal micro-infarctions, owing to micro-embolism of aggregated GHMs into small coronary arterioles, were detected in the AI group. Conversely, only RI and DI groups displayed increased coronary flow reserve. DI groups also demonstrated increased capillary density. These results suggest that RI and DI are effective for cardiac GHM therapy, while AI appears inappropriate owing to the risk of focal infarctions.
ISSN:0969-7128
1476-5462
DOI:10.1038/sj.gt.3302793