Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1998;98:2024-2029

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Amols, H. I.
Right arrow Articles by Weinberger, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Amols, H. I.
Right arrow Articles by Weinberger, J.

(Circulation. 1998;98:2024-2029.)
© 1998 American Heart Association, Inc.


Clinical Investigation and Reports

Intracoronary Radiation for Prevention of Restenosis

Dose Perturbations Caused by Stents

H. I. Amols, PhD; F. Trichter, DSc; ; J. Weinberger, MD, PhD

From Columbia University, Department of Radiation Oncology (H.I.A., F.T.) and Departments of Medicine and Pharmacology (J.W.), New York, NY.


*    Abstract
up arrowTop
*Abstract
down arrowIntroduction
down arrowMethods
down arrowResults
down arrowDiscussion
down arrowReferences
 
Background—Intravascular irradiation with ß-emitters has been proposed for inhibition of restenosis in coronary arteries after balloon angioplasty or stent implantation. Previous studies have shown the effectiveness of {gamma}-radiation to prevent recurrent restenosis, even in the presence of an implanted stent. The limited range of ß-particles compared with {gamma}-radiation, however, opens the question of whether absorption and scattering of ß-particles by stent struts will cause significant perturbations in the uniformity and magnitude of the radiation dose, which may in turn compromise treatment.

Methods and Results—Nine different stents were deployed with a balloon filled with a ß-emitting radioactive liquid. Dose distributions were measured with Gafchromic film. Stents varied significantly in their absorption of ß-particles. Some stents, constructed of fine meshed wires, produced minimal dose perturbations. Others, with thicker, high-atomic-number struts, induced cold spots in the dose distribution adjacent to the wires of <=35%. Average dose reduction varied from 4% to 14% in the presence of various stents.

Conclusions—Radiation strategy may have to be tailored to stent design. Stents that minimally perturb the dose distribution may be deployed before irradiation. Those that significantly alter the radiation dose might be better deployed after irradiation. Dose prescriptions may require modification if such perturbations prove clinically significant. Observed dose perturbations, however, decreased rapidly with increasing distance from the stent, which may mitigate the clinical impact of these findings. This, as well as the effects of stents on {gamma}-dose distributions, requires further investigation.


Key Words: angioplasty • restenosis • brachytherapy • stents • beta rays


*    Introduction
up arrowTop
up arrowAbstract
*Introduction
down arrowMethods
down arrowResults
down arrowDiscussion
down arrowReferences
 
Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty has an angiographic restenosis rate of {approx}32%,1 which can be reduced to 22%2 when accompanied by stent implantation. It has been demonstrated in animal models3 4 5 6 7 and more recently in clinical studies that intracoronary irradiation significantly reduces restenosis, presumably by inhibiting smooth muscle cell proliferation and neointima formation. Irradiation of human femoral arteries appears to confirm these findings.8 A recent report9 of a clinical trial of intravascular {gamma}-irradiation of restenotic lesions (60% of which had been previously stented) in human coronary arteries showed 6-month restenosis rates of 17% in irradiated arteries versus 54% in controls. Large-scale randomized human trials and longer-term follow-up studies are currently in progress.

Several irradiation techniques have been proposed, including temporary insertion of high-activity {gamma}- or ß-emitting seeds or wires; temporary filling of the dilatation balloon catheter with a high-activity ß-emitting solution; implantation of radioactive ß-emitting stents; and external beam irradiation. The dosimetric characteristics of each technique have been presented.10 11 12 To date, most trials have been performed with 192Ir (a {gamma}-emitter), 32P, 90Sr, 90Y, or 188Re (all ß-emitters).

The major dosimetric difference between ß- and {gamma}-radiations is that the former have a finite range in tissue (typically a few millimeters), whereas the latter are exponentially attenuated. Most ß-emitters proposed for intraluminal brachytherapy have transition energies <2.4 MeV, with mean ranges in tissue of only a few millimeters. Such ranges are sufficient for treating smaller arteries, but scattering and absorption of the ß- particles by stent wires could limit the dose to sections of the arterial wall. In particular, stent struts are often made of high-density, high-atomic-number metals in which the range of ß-particles is only a fraction of a millimeter. Stents also perturb the dose for {gamma}-radiation sources, but to a lesser extent because {gamma}-particles lack a finite range. Short-ranged ß-particles, however, offer radiation safety advantages and yield lower whole-body doses to patients and staff than {gamma}-sources. Thus, many ongoing clinical trials now use ß-sources.

We explore herein the perturbations in ß- dose distribution induced by 9 different stents from 7 manufacturers. Implantation of radioactive stents, irradiation by external beam, and intraluminal irradiation from ß- or {gamma}-sources entail different geometries and require separate study.


*    Methods
up arrowTop
up arrowAbstract
up arrowIntroduction
*Methods
down arrowResults
down arrowDiscussion
down arrowReferences
 
The stents tested are listed in Table 1Down, along with the wire composition as given by the manufacturers. Some data on stent design are proprietary information. All stents were nominally rated for 3-mm-diameter arteries and were deployed by filling a 3- or 4-mm-diameter dilatation balloon catheter with a radioactive 188Re solution to nominal pressures.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Stent Composition and Geometry

188Re is a ß-minus emitter with 2.2 MeV of maximum ß-energy. Its production and radioactive properties have been described.12 13 A 188Re-filled balloon provides a homogeneous, cylindrically symmetrical radiation source, which in the absence of perturbing factors yields a uniform dose distribution to the inner lumen wall, as shown in Figure 1ADown (see Results), which was obtained by placing a radioactive filled balloon in direct contact with a piece of Gafchromic film (Nuclear Associates).



View larger version (82K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. A, Dose distribution measured with Gafchromic film for unstented 3-mm-diameterx20-mm-long dilatation balloon filled with liquid 188Re radioactive ß-particle emitter at a distance of 0.125 mm from the balloon surface. Doses are represented in color, with maximum dose shown in red and minimum in purple. B, Dose distribution at 0.125 mm radial distance from the Wallstent(D). C, Dose distribution at 0.125 mm radial distance from the Wiktor stent. D, Dose distribution at 0.125 mm radial distance from the Radius stent.

The film is a 0.25-mm-thick transparent polymer containing a 20-µm-thick radiosensitive emulsion that changes from clear to translucent blue after irradiation. The radiosensitive emulsion is sandwiched in the center of the film, meaning that dose distributions cannot be measured at distances <0.125 mm. The transmission of red light (the color complement of blue) through the film is a function of the radiation dose received by the film. The utility of the film derives from its tissue equivalence, capability for direct readout (no processing required), insensitivity to visible light, high spatial resolution, and independence of response to radiation energy or dose rate.14 15

Each of the 9 stents tested was deployed with a separate angioplasty balloon and placed on top of a stack of 4 slices of Gafchromic film (see Figure 2Down). Doses were measured at distances of 0.125, 0.375, 0.625, and 0.875 mm from the surface of the balloon. A slab of tissue-equivalent material was placed on top of and around each balloon to ensure solid contact between the balloon/stent and the film and to simulate a homogeneous unit density geometry. Stents were inspected visually to ensure full deployment and good film contact. A relatively low-specific-activity 188Re solution was used (5 to 10 mCi/mL, versus a therapeutic activity of 50 to 100 mCi/mL) to reduce the dose to which the experimenters were exposed. Film exposures lasted several hours each.



View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Experimental setup showing cylindrical balloon catheter filled with radioactive 188Re used to deploy a stent. The balloon and deployed stent are placed in contact with Gafchromic film and covered with tissue equivalent bolus (not shown) to ensure good contact.

Exposed films were optically scanned with a computer-controlled red-light transmission scanner, converted to a digital image with 23.6 pixel/mm resolution and 8-bit gray scale. These were converted to dose by use of calibration values obtained by exposing film to known doses of 60Co radiation.

To better quantify the dose distributions, various parameters were extracted from the central 5-mm-axial by 0.5-mm-radial section of each film (where the balloon and stent were tangent to the radiochromic film). The dose within this region was normalized to unity, and dose histograms were determined. The minimum, mean, and SD of each dose distribution were tabulated.

Next, stents were cut along their axial lengths, flattened, placed in direct contact with a piece of radiographic film, and irradiated with parallel, monoenergetic, 1-MeV electrons from a linear accelerator. This permitted measurements of electron beam absorption for a less-complicated geometry. We estimated the relative value of absorption for each stent by measuring the average optical density over a 1-mm-diameter circle of the irradiated film in the vicinity of the stent struts. A qualitative score of 0 (least absorption) to 3 (most absorption) was assigned to each stent on the basis of its optical density.


*    Results
up arrowTop
up arrowAbstract
up arrowIntroduction
up arrowMethods
*Results
down arrowDiscussion
down arrowReferences
 
Stents induce 2 primary effects on ß-dose distributions. The first is an overall reduction in average dose rate due to absorption of some ß-particles by the stent struts. This dose reduction (see Table 2Down) was found to be <14% for all stents tested and <5% for 4 of the stents. Figure 3Down plots the results of depth-dose measurements for a 4-mm-diameter open balloon and for the same balloon with a Palmaz-Schatz (model 153) stent in place. Curves are plotted on an absolute scale of cGy/min per mCi/mL versus distance from the balloon surface. Although the absolute dose is reduced in the presence of the stent, the shape of the depth-dose curve is not significantly changed. Thus, corrections can be made for these dose reductions when doses are prescribed.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. ß-Dose Perturbations Caused by Stents



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Measured depth-dose-curve comparison between a 4-mm-diameter unstented balloon (x) and a Palmaz-Schatz stent (*).Open circles represent calculated doses. All data are plotted on an absolute scale of cGy · min-1 · mCi-1 · mL-1 versus distance.

The second perturbation induced by stents is dose shadowing, shown in Figure 1Up. Figure 1AUp shows a dose distribution measured with Gafchromic film in direct contact with a balloon. For clarity, the dose is displayed by use of a color scale, with the maximum dose represented by red and the minimum by purple. The nominal dimensions of the balloon are 2 cm in length by 3 mm in diameter. There is a central region of uniform high dose (red) where the balloon is tangent to the film. Dose decreases with increasing radial and axial distance from the center of the balloon (yellow, green, and blue regions).

Figures 1BUp, 1CUp, and 1DUp show similar dose distributions for the Wallstent(D), Wiktor, and Radius stents, respectively. A separate balloon deployed each stent, with stents interposed between balloons and film. The Wallstent(E) is a fine elgiloy (an alloy of chromium, cobalt, and nickel) mesh of {approx}25 rows of thin strut wire along the axial length of the stent. The thin, relatively low-atomic-number wires (Cr=24, Co=27, and Ni=28) produced only a shallow ripple of cold spots in the dose distribution, seen as yellow in the central high-dose zone (red) of Figure 1BUp. The maximum dose measured in the red zone of Figure 1BUp for the Wallstent(E) was equal to the maximum dose measured with an unstented balloon (Figure 1AUp), but the average and minimum doses were decreased by the stent. For the Wallstent(E), the dose decrease was 3% to 4%, although other stents produced larger perturbations (see Table 2Up).

The Wiktor stent (Figure 1CUp) has fewer wires than the Wallstent(E), but they are thicker and are made of tantalum (atomic number 73, specific gravity 16.7). The high-atomic-number, high-density wires absorb and scatter more electrons and produce a larger zone of low dose (yellow) than the Wallstent(E). Yellow waves or low-dose shadows within the central red zone are clearly seen in Figure 1CUp for the Wiktor stent. Figure 1DUp shows the dose distribution for the Radius stent, which also has yellow and even green shadow patterns from the stent wires. The Radius stent is constructed of nitinol, an alloy of nickel and titanium. These struts are less dense than the Wiktor tantalum struts but are thicker and more massive.

Figures 1BUp through 1D graphically depict ß-dose distributions very close (0.125 mm) to the stent surface, where the most severe effects are seen. Beyond a distance of {approx}0.5 mm, multiple coulomb scattering of the electrons washes out the shadowing effects of the stent struts, although the reduction in average dose remains. Other radioactive sources, such as solid wires and seeds, may produce different electron scattering patterns from the liquid balloon shown here.

Table 2Up and Figures 3 through 7UpDownDownDownDown present various parameters of the central 5x0.5-mm2 area of each radiochromic film. Table 2Up lists the minimum, mean, and SD of the dose distributions for each stent (all distributions normalized to unity), plus the relative linear accelerator beam absorption. Stents are listed in approximate order of increasing dose perturbation, as defined by a decrease in the mean dose. The maximum dose measured on the surface of the balloon always occurred between struts and was measured to be equal to the maximum dose for the unstented balloon. Only the mean and minimum doses were decreased by the stent.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4. Integral dose surface histograms for unstented balloon (open), Wallstent(E) (Wall), Wiktor, and Radius stents.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 5. Differential dose surface histograms for unstented balloon, Wallstent(E) (Wall), Wiktor, and Radius stents.



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 6. Relative dose inhomogeneity induced by the various stents, as measured by increasing SD of dose distribution. Open indicates unstented balloon; WallE, Wallstent(E); Multi, Multilink; WallD, Wallstent(D); Cardi, CardioCoil; Cord, Cordis Coil; PS, Palmaz-Schatz; and Rad, Radius.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 7. Reduction in mean dose induced by the various stents compared with unstented balloon (normalized to unity). Abbreviations as in Figure 6Up.

The ordering of stents in Table 2Up changes slightly when ranked by minimum dose, SD, or accelerator beam transmission, respectively. By any of these criteria, however, all stents tested fell roughly into 2 categories. Both Wallstents, NIR, CardioCoil, and Multilink stents produced relatively small dose perturbations, with ratios of mean dose to maximum dose within 4% of the unstented balloon and the ratio of minimum to maximum dose within 10%. The Cordis tantalum, Palmaz-Schatz (PS-153), Radius, and Wiktor stents all produced larger dose perturbations, with mean doses up to 14% lower than the unstented balloon and minimum doses up to 35% lower. These dose inhomogeneities applied only at the closest distance measured (0.125 mm from the balloon surface) and decreased significantly with increasing distance, as discussed below.

In Figure 4Up, we plot dose surface histograms (DSH) for the central 5x0.5-mm2 regions of an unstented balloon and for the Wallstent(E), Wiktor, and Radius stents. In a DSH plot, the abscissa represents dose (normalized to 1.0) and the ordinate represents the fraction of lumen surface receiving a dose greater than or equal to a given value of dose. For example, for an unstented balloon, 80% of the lumen wall receives a dose >95% of the maximum (see dashed lines in Figure 4Up), indicating a very uniform dose distribution. For the Radius stent, that same surface fraction (of 80%) receives only >73% of the maximum dose. In other words, for the Radius stent, 20% of the lumen surface (ie, 100%-80%) receives a dose 27% (ie, 100%-73%) lower than prescribed.

Another way to compare DSH plots is to recognize that large surface fractions and large dose values (ie, the upper right corner of the graph) represent uniform dose distributions [unstented balloon or Wallstent(E)], whereas curves in the lower left (Wiktor or Radius stents) represent inhomogeneous distributions. This can also be seen in Figure 5Up, which plots the differential dose distributions. In this graph, the abscissa again represents dose (normalized to 1.0), but the ordinate represents the fraction of the lumen surface receiving a dose equal to a given value of dose. Again we see a decrease in mean dose (the peak in the distribution shifts toward lower doses) and an increase in SD (or full width, half maximum of the distribution) for the Wallstent(E), Wiktor, and Radius stents compared with the unstented balloon.

For clarity, only 3 of the 9 stents are plotted in Figures 4Up and 5Up. Dose inhomogeneities depicted were measured 0.125 mm from the surface of the stents. Figures 6Up and 7Up depict the relative dose inhomogeneity for all stents tested, as measured by the SD of the dose distribution (Figure 6Up), and the mean dose (Figure 7Up). All doses in Figures 1Up, 4Up, 5Up, 6Up, and 7Up and Table 2Up have been normalized for comparative purposes. Figures 6Up and 7Up indicate the relatively large dose perturbations induced by the Cordis tantalum, Palmaz-Schatz, Radius, and Wiktor stents compared with the other 5 stents. This ranking is not a reflection of the clinical efficacy of the stent but merely indicates effects on ß-dose distributions.

Dose perturbations induced by stents were most evident at the stent-lumen interface. Scattering of electrons by stent struts and tissue rapidly filled in the pattern of cold spots seen in Figure 1Up as one went farther into the lumen wall. At a radial distance of 0.375 mm beyond the surface of the balloon or stent, for example, the SD of the dose distribution for the Radius and Wiktor stents was reduced from 0.069 to 0.035 and from 0.062 to 0.022, respectively. At a radial distance of 0.625 mm from the balloon surface, the SDs for both stents was reduced to 0.021, which was not statistically different from the unstented balloon. Nonetheless, all stents had lower average doses and less-uniform dose distributions than the unstented balloon. As distance from the stent increased, the average dose reduction remained relatively constant, but the degree of dose inhomogeneity (compared with the surface inhomogeneity) decreased. At distances >0.5 mm, the inhomogeneity approached that of an unstented balloon.


*    Discussion
up arrowTop
up arrowAbstract
up arrowIntroduction
up arrowMethods
up arrowResults
*Discussion
down arrowReferences
 
Intravascular irradiation with a radioactive liquid ß-source delivers a uniform dose to the arterial wall. The dose uniformity can be compromised by many factors, including vessel asymmetry and curvature, nonuniform wall thickness, and presence of plaque. Stent struts introduce yet another perturbing factor, which may or may not prove to be clinically significant. It has, however, been reported that equal doses of ß-radiation delivered before implantation of a tantalum stent are superior to poststenting radiation for prevention of restenosis in an animal model.16 In that study, however, the vessels irradiated after stenting may have had larger diameters and hence lower doses, and the results do not definitively demonstrate a clinical significance of dose shielding by stent struts.

We also do not know which structures in the vessel wall need be irradiated, or the minimum or maximum acceptable doses. Large dose inhomogeneities, however, may limit the ability to deliver adequate doses to the entire circumference of the vessel wall without overdosing other tissues. This would be particularly true if target cells were close to (ie, <0.5 mm from) the stent surface, where inhomogeneities are large, but less important if target cells were further into the lumen wall or adventitia. In either case, other factors such as vessel asymmetry, noncentered sources, and plaque could conceivably introduce larger dose inhomogeneities than stents.

In any case, each stent tested in the present study produced a unique signature on the dose distribution. The degree of dose inhomogeneity induced by a stent is a complicated function of stent mass, geometry, strut thickness, and composition. Thicker, denser struts absorb more ß-particles than thinner wires. It is notable, however, that large variations were seen among the various stents tested.

Wallstent(E), Wallstent(D), and NIR stents are constructed of fine meshes of thin wires that minimally alter the absolute dose rate or degree of inhomogeneity. The Palmaz-Schatz, Wiktor, Cordis tantalum, and Radius stents, which have thick and/or high-density wires, produce larger inhomogeneities. With the Radius, Wiktor, or Palmaz-Schatz stents, for example, the minimum dose to the lumen wall is only 65% to 68% of the maximum dose.

No single parameter, however, uniquely correlates with either the measured dose distributions or electron beam absorption. For example, the mass of the Cordis tantalum stent per millimeter of length is nearly twice that of the Wiktor stent (23.75 versus 14.0 mg/mm), although both significantly absorb the linear accelerator beam, and the latter induces slightly larger dose inhomogeneities. The Radius stent is constructed of a nickel-titanium alloy with a lower atomic number than either stainless steel or tantalum, yet it induces large dose inhomogeneities.

Nonetheless, some general observations can be made. The Wallstent(E) and Wallstent(D) induce the least dose heterogeneity and are also the most transparent to the linear accelerator beam. This is a result of their relatively low mass and thin wire design. The Wiktor stent induces the most dose heterogeneity and the most absorption of the 1 MeV linear accelerator beam despite its lower mass (14.0 mg/cm) because it is constructed of a small number of relatively thick tantalum wires with an atomic number of 73. Similarly, the Cordis tantalum stent induces large dose perturbations and absorbs the 1-MeV accelerator beam because of its relatively large mass (23.8 mg/cm) and high atomic number. Stents exhibiting intermediate degrees of dose perturbation and accelerator beam absorption, such as the NIR and Multilink, have various combinations of either low mass, low atomic number, or intermediate strut thickness.

Thus, one can qualitatively understand the observed dosimetric properties of stents on the basis of composition and geometry, although no single parameter correlates with the observed dose distributions. It appears that only dosimetric measurements or theoretical calculations can accurately predict reductions in average dose and increased inhomogeneities introduced by stents. Average reduction in dose rate can be measured, as shown in the present study, and compensated for in dose prescription. Dose inhomogeneity, on the other hand, cannot be compensated for and may be clinically significant if the target tissues for restenosis are <0.5 mm from the lumen wall.

Thus, radiation absorption properties, as well as the usual considerations of strength, flexibility, and "trackability", need be considered when a stent is being selected for use with radiation. Dose adjustments may be required to effectively use ß-sources when one is treating restenotic lesions that have previously been stented, particularly when there are multiple or overlapping stents. Overlapping stents would be expected to approximately double the magnitude of the effects reported here, although this was not measured in the present study.

We also did not measure dose perturbations for {gamma}-sources, which should be less affected by stents than are ß-particles because of their increased range. Because it will be necessary in some cases to irradiate patients who have previously been stented, a study of {gamma}-dose perturbations appears to be in order. Results from the SCRIPPS trial,9 however, show no significant clinical difference between stented and unstented patients after irradiation with 192Ir {gamma}-rays. This could be the result of much lower (insignificant) dose perturbation induced by stents when {gamma}-radiation is used. Alternatively, in-stent restenosis may involve the irradiation of cells that are inside rather than outside the stent and thus not affected, at least dosimetrically, by the presence of the stent.

Conclusions
The dose uniformity for intravascular irradiation with ß- sources can be compromised by the presence of stents as well as vessel asymmetry and curvature, nonuniform wall thickness, and the presence of plaque. The degree of dose perturbation varied significantly between the stents tested, although no single parameter (such as mass, atomic number, or geometry) uniquely correlated with the measured doses or beam absorption. It appears that only direct measurements or perhaps Monte Carlo calculations can accurately predict in vivo patient doses. Large dose homogeneities were measured close to stent surfaces, but the degree of inhomogeneity decreased rapidly at larger distances (>0.5 mm). The clinical significance of these findings will depend on whether the target cells are close to the stent or further into the lumen wall or adventitia and also on whether or not vessel asymmetry or variable wall thickness mitigates the inhomogeneity introduced by the stent. Answers will come only from clinical trials.

Limitations
Several experimental conditions limit the accuracy of our results. Incomplete contact between the balloon and the radiochromic film can reduce measured doses, although specific measures to minimize this possibility were used. The thickness of stent struts also introduces some uncertainty as to the true distance between the balloon and film surface, although balloons tend to bulge out and maintain good contact with the film between struts.

Radiochromic film has small inhomogeneities in emulsion thickness, which in turn affect dose accuracy, and film scanner resolution introduces some spatial averaging in the dose readings. In addition, in vivo stent wires may become twisted owing to resistance from vessel walls, and a deployed stent may have a varying diameter along the axial extent of the lesion. These factors could not be duplicated in our experiments, nor could anatomic factors such as vessel asymmetry and curvature, nonuniform wall thickness, and the presence of plaque.

Finally, the clinical significance of our reported dose inhomogeneities can only be determined from clinical trials.


*    Acknowledgments
 
We thank Drs Peter Schiff and Allan Schwartz for thoughtful discussions and encouragement.


*    Footnotes
 
Reprint requests to Howard Amols, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University, 622 West 168 St, New York, NY 10032.

Received February 11, 1998; revision received June 22, 1998; accepted June 23, 1998.


*    References
up arrowTop
up arrowAbstract
up arrowIntroduction
up arrowMethods
up arrowResults
up arrowDiscussion
*References
 
1. Popma J, Califf R, Topol E. Clinical trials of restenosis after coronary angiography. Circulation. 1991;84:1426–1436.[Free Full Text]

2. Serruys P, de Jaegere P, Kiemenci E. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease: Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:489–495.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Wiedermann J, Marboe C, Amols H, Schwartz A, Weinberger J. Intracoronary irradiation markedly reduces restenosis after balloon angioplasty in a porcine model. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23:1491–1498.[Abstract]

4. Wiedermann J, Marboe C, Amols H, Schwartz A, Weinberger J. Intracoronary irradiation markedly reduces neointimal proliferation after balloon angioplasty in swine: persistent benefit at 6-month follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:1451–1456.[Abstract]

5. Weinberger J, Amols H, Ennis RD, Schwartz A, Wiedermann J, Marboe C. Intracoronary irradiation: dose response for the prevention of restenosis in swine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;36:767–775.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

6. Waksman R, Robinson KA, Crocker IR, Gravanis MB, Cipolla GD, King SB. Endovascular low-dose irradiation inhibits neointima formation after coronary artery balloon injury in swine: a possible role for radiation therapy in restenosis prevention. Circulation. 1995;91:1533–1539.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7. Mazur W, Nadir M, Musa Khan M, Dabaghi S, DeFelice C, Paradis P, Butler E, Wright A, Fajardo L, French B, Raizner A. High dose rate intracoronary radiation for inhibition of neointimal formation in the stented and balloon-injured porcine models of restenosis: angiographic, morphometric, and histopathologic analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;36:777–788.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

8. Bottcher HD, Schopohl B, Liermann D, Kollath J, Adamietz IA. Endovascular irradiation: a new method to avoid recurrent stenosis after stent implantation in peripheral arteries: technique and preliminary results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;29:183–186.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

9. Tierstein P, Massullo V, Shirish J, Popma JH, Mintz G, Russo R, Schatz R, Guarneri E, Steuterman S, Morris N, Martin R, Leon B, Tripuraneni P. Catheter-based radiotherapy to inhibit restenosis after coronary stenting. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1697–1703.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Amols HI, Zaider M, Weinberger J, Ennis R, Schiff PB, Reinstein LE. Dosimetric considerations for catheter based beta and gamma emitters in the therapy of neointimal hyperplasia in human coronary arteries. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;36:913–921.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

11. Amols HI, Weinberger J. Intravascular brachytherapy physics: review of radiation sources and techniques. In: Waksman R, King S, Crocker I, Mould R, eds. Vascular Brachytherapy. Veenendaal, The Netherlands: Nucletron-Oldelft; 1996:104–115.

12. Amols HI, Reinstein LE, Weinberger J. Dosimetry of a radioactive coronary balloon dilatation catheter for treatment of neointimal hyperplasia. Med Phys. 1996;23:1783–1788.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

13. Knapp FF, Callahan AP, Beets AL, Mirzadeh S, Hsieh BT. Processing of reactor-produced 188W for fabrication of clinical scale alumina-based 188W/188Re generators. Appl Radiat Isot. 1994;45:1123–1128.

14. Chiu-Tsao ST, de la Zerda A, Lin J, Kim JH. High-sensitivity Gaf-Chromic film dosimetry for 125I seed. Med Phys. 1994;21:651–657.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

15. McLaughlin WL, Chen YD, Soares CG, Miller A, Van Dyk G, Lewis DF. Sensitometry of the response of a new radiochromic film dosimeter to gamma radiation and electron beams. Nucl Inst Meth Phys Res. 1991;A302:165–176.

16. Waksman R, Robinson KA, Crocker IR, Gravanis MB, Palmer SJ, Cipolla GD. Intracoronary beta radiation before versus after stent implantation for inhibition of neointimal formation in the porcine model. Circulation. 1996;94(suppl I):I-619. Abstract.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JOURNAL OF THE ICRUHome page
REFERENCES
J. ICRU, December 1, 2004; 4(2): 165 - 175.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
Y. Morino, H. Kaneda, T. Fox, A. Takagi, A. H.M. Hassan, R. Bonan, I. Crocker, A. J. Lansky, W. K. Laskey, M. Suntharalingam, et al.
Delivered Dose and Vascular Response After {beta}-Radiation for In-Stent Restenosis: Retrospective Dosimetry and Volumetric Intravascular Ultrasound Analysis
Circulation, October 29, 2002; 106(18): 2334 - 2339.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
P.W. Serruys, G. Sianos, W. van der Giessen, H.J.R.M. Bonnier, P. Urban, W. Wijns, E. Benit, M. Vandormael, R. Dorr, C. Disco, et al.
Intracoronary {beta}-radiation to reduce restenosis after balloon angioplasty and stenting. The Beta Radiation In Europe (BRIE) study
Eur. Heart J., September 1, 2002; 23(17): 1351 - 1359.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
C. Hanefeld, S. Amirie, D. Borchardt, P. Grewe, K.-M. Muller, M. Kissler, and A. Mugge
Dosimetric Measurements in Isolated Human Coronary Arteries: Comparison of Commercially Available Iridium192 With Strontium/Yttrium90 Emitters
Circulation, May 28, 2002; 105(21): 2493 - 2496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
S.-W. Park, M.-K. Hong, D. H. Moon, S. J. Oh, C. W. Lee, J.-J. Kim, and S.-J. Park
Treatment of diffuse in-stent restenosis with rotational atherectomy followed by radiation therapy with a rhenium-188-mercaptoacetyltriglycine-filled balloon
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 2001; 38(3): 631 - 637.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
R. Makkar, J. Whiting, A. Li, H. Honda, M. C. Fishbein, F.F. Knapp, J. Hausleiter, F. Litvack, and N. L. Eigler
Effects of {beta}--Emitting 188Re Balloon in Stented Porcine Coronary Arteries : An Angiographic, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Histomorphometric Study
Circulation, December 19, 2000; 102(25): 3117 - 3123.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
A. E. Raizner, S. N. Oesterle, R. Waksman, P. W. Serruys, A. Colombo, Y.-L. Lim, A. C. Yeung, W. J. van der Giessen, L. Vandertie, J. K. Chiu, et al.
Inhibition of Restenosis With {beta}-Emitting Radiotherapy : Report of the Proliferation Reduction With Vascular Energy Trial (PREVENT)
Circulation, August 29, 2000; 102(9): 951 - 958.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
M. Hoher, J. Wohrle, M. Wohlfrom, H. Hanke, R. Voisard, H. H. Osterhues, M. Kochs, S. N. Reske, V. Hombach, and J. Kotzerke
Intracoronary {beta}-Irradiation With a Liquid 188Re-Filled Balloon : Six-Month Results From a Clinical Safety and Feasibility Study
Circulation, May 23, 2000; 101(20): 2355 - 2360.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
R. Waksman, B. Bhargava, L. White, R. C. Chan, R. Mehran, A. J. Lansky, G. S. Mintz, L. F. Satler, A. D. Pichard, M. B. Leon, et al.
Intracoronary {beta}-Radiation Therapy Inhibits Recurrence of In-Stent Restenosis
Circulation, April 25, 2000; 101(16): 1895 - 1898.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTHHome page
C. E. Chambers, S. T Riebel, and M. Kozak
Interventional Cardiology: Advances in Percutaneous Techniques for the Treatment of Cardiac Disease
Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, July 1, 1999; 3(2): 109 - 125.
[Abstract] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Amols, H. I.
Right arrow Articles by Weinberger, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Amols, H. I.
Right arrow Articles by Weinberger, J.