Early ischaemic preconditioning of spinal cord enhanced the binding profile of heat shock protein 70 with neurofilaments and promoted its nuclear translocation after thoraco-abdominal aortic occlusion in pigs.

OBJECTIVE(S): Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) is detected in substantial amounts in normal neurons and this basal content may protect a cell against harmful conditions without the need for additional synthesis. Herein, we investigate the potential protective role of these basal levels of Hsp70, in an early ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) experimental model, suggesting a possible role of this protein as a first window of protection. DESIGN, MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two pigs were used in an experimental thoraco-abdominal aortic occlusion model. Twelve animals (two groups) were used for neurological evaluation. The remaining 30 animals (five groups) were used for immunoprecipitation and immunohistochemical studies. These were performed to study the binding relationship of Hsp70/cytoskeleton elements and the cellular distribution of Hsp70, respectively. RESULTS: The IPC + ischaemia-group showed significant better neurologic scores compared with those of the ischaemia group, indicating a protective role for IPC (P = 0.003). The immunoprecipitations demonstrated that early IPC increased significantly the binding profile of Hsp70/neurofilaments (P = 0.025). In addition, translocation of Hsp70 into the nucleus was observed, which was conserved until the sustained ischaemia. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that Hsp70 may have an important role in early IPC of the spinal cord, by protecting neurofilaments and by ensuring the functionality and the integrity of the nucleus, at the time the intensive insult begins.

Open or endovascular repair of aortoenteric fistulas? A multicentre comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare aortoenteric fistula (AEF) outcome after endovascular (EV-AEFR) or open repair (O-AEFR). DESIGN: Multicentre retrospective comparative study. MATERIALS/METHODS: 25 patients with AEF (24 secondary, 23 males, median age 75 years) after aortic surgery (median four years). Preoperative sepsis was evident in 19 cases. Eight patients were managed with EV-AEFR and 17 with O-AEFR. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in preoperative characteristics. In-hospital mortality after EV-AEFR was lower compared to O-AEFR (0% and 35%, respectively, p = 0.13). Similarly, morbidity after EV-AEFR was lower compared to O-AEFR (25% and 77%, respectively, p = 0.028). There was a trend for worse recurrence-free, sepsis-free, re-operation-free and AEF-related death-free rates after EV-AEFR, while the early survival advantage of EV-AEFR was lost after two years and the overall long-term survival rates (perioperative mortality included) of the two groups were similar. Preoperative sepsis had no effect on recurrence and sepsis-free rates (p = 0.94 and p = 0.92, respectively), but it was associated with worse two year overall survival (24% vs 50%, p = 0.32). On multivariate analysis, the number of symptoms (two vs one) at presentation was the single predictor of worse re-operation rates, AEF-related and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: EV-AEFR was associated with no postoperative mortality in this study and can achieve satisfactory short and long-term results, comparable to O-AEFR. Further trials should focus on the role of EV-AEFR in patients at high risk for O-AEFR, due to shock or co-morbidities, or as a bridging procedure.