Rapamycin: A Bacteria-Derived Immunosuppressant That Has Anti-atherosclerotic Effects and Its Clinical Application

Atherosclerosis (AS) is the leading cause of stroke and death worldwide. Although many lipid-lowering or antiplatelet medicines have been used to prevent the devastating outcomes caused by AS, the serious side effects of these medicines cannot be ignored. Moreover, these medicines are aimed at preventing end-point events rather than addressing the formation and progression of the lesion. Rapamycin (sirolimus), a fermentation product derived from soil samples, has immunosuppressive and anti-proliferation effects. It is an inhibitor of mammalian targets of rapamycin, thereby stimulating autophagy pathways. Several lines of evidence have demonstrated that rapamycin possess multiple protective effects against AS through various molecular mechanisms. Moreover, it has been used successfully as an anti-proliferation agent to prevent in-stent restenosis or vascular graft stenosis in patients with coronary artery disease. A thorough understanding of the biomedical regulatory mechanism of rapamycin in AS might reveal pathways for retarding AS. This review summarizes the current knowledge of biomedical mechanisms by which rapamycin retards AS through action on various cells (endothelial cells, macrophages, vascular smooth muscle cells, and T-cells) in early and advanced AS and describes clinical and potential clinical applications of the agent

Sulodexide for Secondary Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Patients with venous thromboembolism have high risk of recurrence after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment. Extended anticoagulation, such as traditional anticoagulants, can reduce the risk of recurrence but is associated with increased risk of hemorrhage. Sulodexide is a natural glycosaminoglycan mixture which can prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism. However, its clinical efficiency and safety still remain controversial.Methods: A systematic search in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and bibliographies of retrieved articles was performed. Prospective controlled studies reporting the efficacy and safety of sulodexide on the secondary prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the following data: first author, year of publication, study design, characteristics of patients, data of interventions, doses of sulodexide, overall duration of drug administration, time of follow-up, efficacy and safety outcomes, adverse effects, and the quality of the included studies. The primary efficacy outcomes were recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism. The secondary efficacy outcomes included distal or superficial vein thrombosis and nonfatal or fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and acute ischemia of the lower limbs. Safety outcome was possible hemorrhagic episodes.Results: Four studies involving 1,461 patients were enrolled in this study. Meta-analysis showed that sulodexide significantly reduced the recurrent venous thromboembolism [RR 0.51, 95 % CI [0.35, 0.74], P = 0.0004] and superficial vein thrombosis in the sulodexide group [RR 0.41, 95% CI [0.22, 0.76], P = 0.005]. The safety of sulodexide was also reliable. The rate of bleeding was 0.28% in the sulodexide group and 1.60% in the control group, and design of study did not influence these results.Conclusions: Sulodexide could significantly reduce the recurrence of VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment as compared with placebo

Comparative effectiveness and safety of laser, needle, and “quick fenestrater” in in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BackgroundSpecial instruments are needed for the revascularization of aortic branches in in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This prospective study compared the effectiveness and safety of three currently used fenestraters: laser, needle, and Quick Fenestrater (QF).MethodsIn all, 101 patients who underwent TEVAR for aortic disease (dissection, n = 62; aneurysm, n = 16, or ulcer, n = 23) were enrolled. All patients were randomly assigned to three groups: 34 were assigned to laser fenestration, 36 to needle fenestration, and 31 to QF fenestration. The epidemiological data, treatment, imaging findings, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed using data from the medical records.ResultsThe technical success rates of the laser, needle, and QF fenestration groups were 94.1%, 94.4%, and 100% (p > 0.05). After correction of mixed factors such as age and gender, it was showed the average operative time (Laser group: 130.01 ± 9.36 min/ Needle group: 149.80 ± 10.18 min vs. QF group: 101.10 ± 6.75 min, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (Laser group: 30.16 ± 9.81 min/ Needle group: 40.20 ± 9.91 min vs. QF group: 19.91 ± 5.42 min, p < 0.001), fenestration time (Laser group 5.50 ± 3.10 min / Needle group 3.50 ± 1.50 min vs. QF group 0.67 ± 0.06 min, p < 0.001), and guide wire passage time after fenestration (Laser group 5.10 ± 1.70 min / Needle group 4.28 ± 1.60 min vs. QF group 0.07 ± 0.01 min, p < 0.001) were all shorter with QF fenestration than with the other two tools. The overall perioperative complication rates of the laser, needle, and QF fenestration groups were 5.9%, 5.6%, and 0% (p > 0.05): One case of sheath thermal injury and one case of vertebral artery ischemia occurred in the laser fenestration group; one case each of access site hematoma and brachial artery thrombosis were reported in the needle fenestration group. 89 (88.1%, 89/101) patients were followed for a median of 12.6 ± 1.6 months. The overall postoperative complication rates of the laser, needle, and QF fenestration groups were 3.3%, 6.5%, and 0% (p > 0.05): In the laser fenestration group, there was one death due to postoperative ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; in the needle fenestration group, one patient developed occlusion of the bridge stent; no complications occurred in the QF group.ConclusionAll three fenestration methods were effective in reconstructing supra-arch artery during TEVAR. QF fenestration required less contrast agent, with a shorter surgery duration and fewer complications than laser and needle fenestration

Endovascular Repair of Ascending Aortic Dissection A Novel Treatment Option for Patients Judged Unfit for Direct Surgical Repair

ObjectivesThis paper sought to report the outcomes of patients who are considered unfit for urgent surgical repair of ascending aortic dissections (AADs) who were treated using a novel endovascular repair strategy.BackgroundAAD is best treated by direct surgical repair. Patients who are unable to undergo this form of treatment have poor prognoses. Previously, clinical case reports related to endovascular repair of AAD have been controversial.MethodsBetween May 2009 and January 2011, 41 consecutive patients with AAD were treated in our institution. Fifteen patients were considered poor candidates for direct surgical repair and subsequently underwent the endovascular repair.ResultsThe nature of the referral process to our tertiary care facility made the median time from aortic dissection onset to treatment 25.5 days (range: 6 to 353 days). Dissections in 5 patients (33.3%) were considered acute, and those in 10 patients (66.7%) were considered chronic. The rate of successful stent-graft deployment was 100%, and there were no major morbidities or deaths in the perioperative period. Median follow-up was 26 months (range: 16 to 35 months). One new dissection occurred in the aortic arch at 3 months and was treated with a branched endograft. Significant enlargements of true lumens and decreases of false lumens and overall thoracic aorta were noted after the procedures.ConclusionsEndovascular repair of AAD was an appropriate treatment option in patients who were considered poor candidates for traditional direct surgical repair by the clinical criteria used in our institution. A larger series of cases with longer follow-up is needed to substantiate these results

Table_1_Sulodexide for Secondary Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.DOCX

<p>Background: Patients with venous thromboembolism have high risk of recurrence after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment. Extended anticoagulation, such as traditional anticoagulants, can reduce the risk of recurrence but is associated with increased risk of hemorrhage. Sulodexide is a natural glycosaminoglycan mixture which can prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism. However, its clinical efficiency and safety still remain controversial.</p><p>Methods: A systematic search in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and bibliographies of retrieved articles was performed. Prospective controlled studies reporting the efficacy and safety of sulodexide on the secondary prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the following data: first author, year of publication, study design, characteristics of patients, data of interventions, doses of sulodexide, overall duration of drug administration, time of follow-up, efficacy and safety outcomes, adverse effects, and the quality of the included studies. The primary efficacy outcomes were recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism. The secondary efficacy outcomes included distal or superficial vein thrombosis and nonfatal or fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and acute ischemia of the lower limbs. Safety outcome was possible hemorrhagic episodes.</p><p>Results: Four studies involving 1,461 patients were enrolled in this study. Meta-analysis showed that sulodexide significantly reduced the recurrent venous thromboembolism [RR 0.51, 95 % CI [0.35, 0.74], P = 0.0004] and superficial vein thrombosis in the sulodexide group [RR 0.41, 95% CI [0.22, 0.76], P = 0.005]. The safety of sulodexide was also reliable. The rate of bleeding was 0.28% in the sulodexide group and 1.60% in the control group, and design of study did not influence these results.</p><p>Conclusions: Sulodexide could significantly reduce the recurrence of VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment as compared with placebo.</p