Hydrogen Sulfide Improves Neutrophil Migration and Survival in Sepsis via K(ATP)(+) Channel Activation

Rationale Recovering the neutrophil migration to the infectious focus improves survival in severe sepsis. Recently, we demonstrated that the cystathionine gamma-lyase (CSE)/hydrogen sulfide (H(2)S) pathway increased neutrophil recruitment to inflammatory focus during sterile inflammation. Objectives: To evaluate if H(2)S administration increases neutrophil migration to infectious focus and survival of mice. Methods. Sepsis was induced by cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) Measurements and Main Results. The pretreatments of mice with H2S donors (NaHS or Lawesson`s reagent) improved leukocyte rolling/adhesion in the mesenteric microcirculation as well as neutrophil migration. Consequently, bacteremia levels were reduced, hypotension and lung lesions were prevented, and the survival rate increased from approximately 13% to approximately 80% Even when treatment was delayed (6 h after CLP), a highly significant reduction in mortality compared with untreated mice was observed Moreover, H(2)S pretreatment prevented the down-regulation of CXCR2 and L-selectin and the up-regulation of CD11b and G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2 in neutrophils during sepsis. H(2)S also prevented the reduction of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression in the endothelium of the mesenteric microcirculation in severe sepsis Confirming the critical role of H(2)S on sepsis outcome, pretreatment with dl-propargylglycine (a CSE inhibitor) inhibited neutrophil migration to the infectious focus, enhanced lung lesions, and induced high mortality in mice subjected to nonsevere sepsis (from 0 to similar to 80%). The beneficial effects of H(2)S were blocked by glibenclamide (a ATP-dependent K(+) channel blocker). Conclusions: These results showed that H(2)S restores neutrophil migration to the infectious focus and improves survival outcome in severe sepsis by an ATP-dependent K(+) channel-dependent mechanism.Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Tecnologico (CNPq)Programa de Nucleos de Excelencia (PRONEX

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable