Yingjun Liu1,2,3,4, Peixi Liu1,2,3,4, Yaying Song5,6, Sichen Li1,2,3,4, Yuan Shi1,2,3,4, Kai Quan1,2,3,4, Guo Yu1,2,3,4, Peiliang Li7,8,9,10, Qingzhu An11,12,13,14, Wei Zhu15,16,17,18. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 2. Neurosurgical Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 3. Shanghai Clinical Medical Center of Neurosurgery, Shanghai, China. 4. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Restoration and Neural Regeneration, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Neurology, Renji Hospital of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 6. Neuroscience and Neuroengineering Research Center, Med-X Research Institute and School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. peiliangli@126.com. 8. Neurosurgical Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. peiliangli@126.com. 9. Shanghai Clinical Medical Center of Neurosurgery, Shanghai, China. peiliangli@126.com. 10. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Restoration and Neural Regeneration, Shanghai, China. peiliangli@126.com. 11. Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. anqingzhu@me.com. 12. Neurosurgical Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. anqingzhu@me.com. 13. Shanghai Clinical Medical Center of Neurosurgery, Shanghai, China. anqingzhu@me.com. 14. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Restoration and Neural Regeneration, Shanghai, China. anqingzhu@me.com. 15. Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. drzhuwei@fudan.edu.cn. 16. Neurosurgical Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. drzhuwei@fudan.edu.cn. 17. Shanghai Clinical Medical Center of Neurosurgery, Shanghai, China. drzhuwei@fudan.edu.cn. 18. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Restoration and Neural Regeneration, Shanghai, China. drzhuwei@fudan.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An endovascular covered-stent has unique advantages in treating complex intracranial aneurysms; however, in-stent stenosis and late thrombosis have become the main factors affecting the efficacy of covered-stent treatment. Smooth-muscle-cell phenotypic modulation plays an important role in late in-stent stenosis and thrombosis. Here, we determined the efficacy of using covered stents loaded with drugs to inhibit smooth-muscle-cell phenotypic modulation and potentially lower the incidence of long-term complications. METHODS: Nanofiber-covered stents were prepared using coaxial electrospinning, with the core solution prepared with 15% heparin and 20 µM rosuvastatin solution (400: 100 µL), and the shell solution prepared with 120 mg/mL hexafluoroisopropanol. We established a rabbit carotid-artery aneurysm model, which was treated with covered stents. Angiography and histology were performed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and incidence rate of in-stent stenosis and thrombosis. Phenotype, function, and inflammatory factors of smooth-muscle cells were studied to explore the mechanism of rosuvastatin action in smooth-muscle cells. RESULT: Heparin-rosuvastatin-loaded nanofiber scaffold mats inhibited the proliferation of synthetic smooth-muscle cells, and the nanofiber-covered stent effectively treated aneurysms in the absence of notable in-stent stenosis. Additionally, in vitro experiments showed that rosuvastatin inhibited the smooth-muscle-cell phenotypic modulation of platelet-derived growth factor-BB induction and decreased synthetic smooth-muscle-cell viability, as well as secretion of inflammatory cytokines. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin inhibited the abnormal proliferation of synthetic smooth-muscle cells, and heparin-rosuvastatin-loaded covered stents reduced the incidence of stenosis and late thrombosis, thereby improving the healing rates of stents used for aneurysm treatment.
BACKGROUND: An endovascular covered-stent has unique advantages in treating complex intracranial aneurysms; however, in-stent stenosis and late thrombosis have become the main factors affecting the efficacy of covered-stent treatment. Smooth-muscle-cell phenotypic modulation plays an important role in late in-stent stenosis and thrombosis. Here, we determined the efficacy of using covered stents loaded with drugs to inhibit smooth-muscle-cell phenotypic modulation and potentially lower the incidence of long-term complications. METHODS: Nanofiber-covered stents were prepared using coaxial electrospinning, with the core solution prepared with 15% heparin and 20 µM rosuvastatin solution (400: 100 µL), and the shell solution prepared with 120 mg/mL hexafluoroisopropanol. We established a rabbit carotid-artery aneurysm model, which was treated with covered stents. Angiography and histology were performed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and incidence rate of in-stent stenosis and thrombosis. Phenotype, function, and inflammatory factors of smooth-muscle cells were studied to explore the mechanism of rosuvastatin action in smooth-muscle cells. RESULT: Heparin-rosuvastatin-loaded nanofiber scaffold mats inhibited the proliferation of synthetic smooth-muscle cells, and the nanofiber-covered stent effectively treated aneurysms in the absence of notable in-stent stenosis. Additionally, in vitro experiments showed that rosuvastatin inhibited the smooth-muscle-cell phenotypic modulation of platelet-derived growth factor-BB induction and decreased synthetic smooth-muscle-cell viability, as well as secretion of inflammatory cytokines. CONCLUSION:Rosuvastatin inhibited the abnormal proliferation of synthetic smooth-muscle cells, and heparin-rosuvastatin-loaded covered stents reduced the incidence of stenosis and late thrombosis, thereby improving the healing rates of stents used for aneurysm treatment.
Authors: Andrew Molyneux; Richard Kerr; Irene Stratton; Peter Sandercock; Mike Clarke; Julia Shrimpton; Rury Holman Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-10-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David O Wiebers; J P Whisnant; J Huston; I Meissner; R D Brown; D G Piepgras; G S Forbes; K Thielen; D Nichols; W M O'Fallon; J Peacock; L Jaeger; N F Kassell; G L Kongable-Beckman; J C Torner Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-07-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Guglielmi; F Viñuela; G Duckwiler; J Dion; P Lylyk; A Berenstein; C Strother; V Graves; V Halbach; D Nichols Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1992-10 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Jacoba P Greving; Marieke J H Wermer; Robert D Brown; Akio Morita; Seppo Juvela; Masahiro Yonekura; Toshihiro Ishibashi; James C Torner; Takeo Nakayama; Gabriël J E Rinkel; Ale Algra Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Jian B Wang; Ming H Li; Chun Fang; Wu Wang; Ying S Cheng; Pei L Zhang; Zhuo Y Du; Jue Wang Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Dennis J Nieuwkamp; Larissa E Setz; Ale Algra; Francisca H H Linn; Nicolien K de Rooij; Gabriël J E Rinkel Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Andrew J Molyneux; Richard S C Kerr; Ly-Mee Yu; Mike Clarke; Mary Sneade; Julia A Yarnold; Peter Sandercock Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 3-9 Impact factor: 79.321