The role of polymorph nuclear neutrophils (PMN) in limb ischemia and reperfusion has been recognized only in recent years. The present study aimed to investigate the systemic and local (in femoral venous blood) effects of intra-arterially or intravenously applied prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) on systemic and ischemia-induced local changes in neutrophil function. Thirty patients with intermittent claudication were randomly assigned to intra-arterial or intravenous infusion of prostaglandin E1 (10 microg i.a. or 15 microg i.v. over 30 min). Prior to infusion femoral arterial and venous blood samples were obtained from the predominantly affected leg under resting conditions and immediately after a 3-min period of ischemia induced by suprasystolic thigh compression. After 24 h additional blood samples were obtained at baseline, following infusion of prostaglandin E1, and again after another 3-min period of ischemia following the prostaglandin E1 infusion. Intra-arterially administered prostaglandin E1 caused an increase in the PMN count by 3.5 +/- 2% (p<0.05) and a decrease in free oxygen radical production by 13 +/- 8% (p<0.05) measured by whole blood chemiluminescence. Additionally, a trend for lower PMN filterabilities (9 +/- 12%, NS) was observed. Intra-arterially infused prostaglandin E1 significantly reduced the ischemia-induced decrease in neutrophil filterability (arterial and venous blood difference after ischemia -- control: 22 +/- 17% (p<0.05); IA PGE1: 8 +/- 11% (NS), each compared to baseline). Intravenously administered prostaglandin E1 showed similar systemic effects as the intra-arterial application, but did not affect the ischemia-induced changes in neutrophil filterability. In conclusion, prostaglandin E1 reduces PMN activation in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease.
The treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms by means of transluminally placed endovascular prostheses reflects significant progress in the field of vascular surgery. In the case of infrarenal aortic aneurysm it is possible to achieve technically successful implantation of such a prosthesis in well over 90 % of cases. The rate of clinical success, meaning lasting effective exclusion of the aortic aneurysm, cannot (yet) be definitively determined, since no long-term results are so far available. Secondary leaks are observed in at least 10 % of all patients, making a further therapy necessary (endorepair, conversion, embolization). Further development of endovascular prostheses will include optimization of the aortal/iliac attachment of the prostheses, a better configuration and the development of long-lasting materials that can be used for endovascular prostheses.
Every year more than 250,000 patients suffer from ischemic (80%) or hemorragic (20%) stroke. Some 40,000 of these strokes are induced by stenosis or occlusion of the extracranial carotid artery. Several randomized studies (NASCET, ECST, ACAS, etc.) have proved that operative removal of high-grade carotid stenoses is an effective method in the primary and secondary prophylaxis of ischemic stroke. Operative therapy is significantly better than medical therapy with thrombocyte aggregation inhibitors. The prerequisite for effective operative prophylaxis is a low perioperative stroke rate. Even though the prophylactic value of carotid thrombarterectomy (TEA) is obvious, only about 5% of all carotid-related strokes are prevented by this operation. Essential conditions for increased efficiency in carotid surgery are close cooperation with the neurologist and the internist, screening of patients with a high risk for ischemic stroke, sophisticated, mainly non-invasive diagnostics, and more operative capacity. Interventional methods (stent, PTA) have not yet been proved safe and effective. These methods should be employed only in special cases after interdisciplinary discussions or in randomized studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.