Gasdermin D Inhibitor Necrosulfonamide Alleviates Angiotensin II-Induced Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Apolipoprotein E-Deficient Mice.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a chronic aortic disease that lacks effective pharmacological therapies. This study was performed to determine the influence of treatment with the gasdermin D inhibitor necrosulfonamide on experimental AAAs. AAAs were induced in male apolipoprotein E-deficient mice by subcutaneous angiotensin II infusion (1000 ng/kg body weight/min), with daily administration of necrosulfonamide (5 mg/kg body weight) or vehicle starting 3 days prior to angiotensin II infusion for 30 days. Necrosulfonamide treatment remarkably suppressed AAA enlargement, as indicated by reduced suprarenal maximal external diameter and surface area, and lowered the incidence and reduced the severity of experimental AAAs. Histologically, necrosulfonamide treatment attenuated medial elastin breaks, smooth muscle cell depletion, and aortic wall collagen deposition. Macrophages, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and neovessels were reduced in the aneurysmal aortas of necrosulfonamide- as compared to vehicle-treated angiotensin II-infused mice. Atherosclerosis and intimal macrophages were also substantially reduced in suprarenal aortas from angiotensin II-infused mice following necrosulfonamide treatment. Additionally, the levels of serum interleukin-1ß and interleukin-18 were significantly lower in necrosulfonamide- than in vehicle-treated mice without affecting body weight gain, lipid levels, or blood pressure. Our findings indicate that necrosulfonamide reduced experimental AAAs by preserving aortic structural integrity as well as reducing mural leukocyte accumulation, neovessel formation, and systemic levels of interleukin-1ß and interleukin-18. Thus, pharmacologically inhibiting gasdermin D activity may lead to the establishment of nonsurgical therapies for clinical AAA disease.

Five-year follow-up of randomized clinical trial for pre-emptive inferior mesenteric artery embolization during endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Type II endoleak (T2EL) is the most common type of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and a common indication for reintervention due to late sac enlargement. Although pre-emptive embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) has been proposed to prevent this, no studies have prospectively demonstrated its efficacy. This study aimed to prove the validity of IMA embolization during EVAR in selective cases by analyzing the mid-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial (RCT). METHODS: This single-center, parallel-group, non-blinded RCT included participants at high risk of T2EL, characterized by a patent IMA in conjunction with one or more following risk factors: a patent IMA ≥3 mm in diameter, lumbar arteries ≥2 mm in diameter, or an aortoiliac-type aneurysm. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio: one undergoing EVAR with IMA embolization and the other without. The primary endpoint was T2EL occurrence. The secondary endpoints included aneurysm sac changes and reintervention. In addition to RCT participants, outcomes of patients with low risk of T2EL were also analyzed. RESULTS: The embolization and non-embolization groups each contained 53 patients. Five-year follow-up after the last patient enrollment revealed that T2ELs occurred in 28.3% and 54.7% of patients in the IMA embolization and non-embolization groups, respectively (P = .006). Both freedom from T2EL-related sac enlargement ≥5 mm and cumulative incidence of sac shrinkage ≥5 mm were significantly higher in the IMA embolization group than in the non-embolization group (95.5% vs 73.6% at 5 years; P = .021; 54.2% vs 33.6% at 5 years; P = .039, respectively). The freedom from T2EL-related sac enlargement ≥10 mm, an alternative indicator for T2EL-related reintervention, showed similar results (100% vs 90.4% at 5 years; P = .019). Outcomes in the low-risk group were preferable than those in the non-embolization group and comparable to those in the IMA embolization group. CONCLUSIONS: A lower threshold for pre-emptive IMA embolization when implementing EVAR would be more appropriate if limited to patients at high risk of T2ELs.