Pharmacokinetics and consistency of pericardial delivery directed to coronary arteries: direct comparison with endoluminal delivery

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS:

Pharmacologic modulation of the contents of the pericardial space has been shown to influence the response of coronary arteries to balloon injury. Endoluminal (EL) local delivery of various drugs into coronaries has been found to be limited by short residence time, as well as by highly variable deposited agent concentration. We hypothesized that compounds placed into the pericardial space (P) would penetrate into coronary tissue with greater consistency than seen after EL delivery and provide for prolonged coronary exposure to agents. METHODS AND RESULTS:

125I-labeled basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), albumin, or 131I-labeled diazeniumdiolated albumin (NONO-albumin) were delivered as model/therapeutic proteins into the porcine pericardial space (n = 15 pigs) or into coronaries using an EL delivery catheter (n = 48 arteries). In subjects receiving 125I-labeled proteins, the delivery target or mid-regions of the left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex (LCx) arteries were harvested at 1 h or 24 h for gamma-counting and autoradiography, and fractional intramural delivery (FID) or retention measured as percent agent in 100 mg artery/agent in infusate for both time points. In the animals receiving 131I-labeled NONO-albumin, serial gamma imaging was employed to evaluate the rate of redistribution in individual animals following either pericardial or endoluminal delivery. At 1 h, FID values ranged from 0.00064 to 0.0052% for P delivery (median 0.0022%), and from 0.00021 to 6.7 for EL delivery (median 0.27%). At 24 h, FID values ranged from 0.00011 to 0.003 for P delivery (median 0.0013), and from 0.0002 to 1.4 for EL delivery. The estimated T1/2 for bFGF redistribution from the vascular tissue was 22 h (P) and 7 h (EL), respectively, while the directly determined T1/2 values for NONO-albumin redistribution from the delivery region were 22.2 h (P) and 2.5 h (EL). CONCLUSIONS:

These data show that pericardial fluid contents can access coronary arteries with intramural concentrations which typically vary by 10-15-fold, while EL delivery results in a remarkably wide intramural concentration range with up to 33,000-fold variability. The apparent redistribution rate is more rapid following EL delivery, possibly due to sustained diffusive tissue loading from the pericardial space. Pericardial delivery appears to offer substantial advantages over EL administration with respect to residence time and reproducibility.