Everolimus interferes with healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses

Transplantation

Volumn 82, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 1477-1483

  Van Der Vliet, J Adam ^a   Willems, Martine C M ^a   De Man, Ben M ^a   Lomme, Roger M L M ^a   Hendriks, Thijs ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Everolimus; Immunosuppression; Wound healing

Indexed keywords

COLLAGEN; EVEROLIMUS; GELATINASE; HYDROXYPROLINE; MAMMALIAN TARGET OF RAPAMYCIN INHIBITOR;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CELL PROLIFERATION; COLON; COLON ANASTOMOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; ENZYME ACTIVITY; HISTOLOGY; ILEUM; ILEUM ANASTOMOSIS; INTESTINE ANASTOMOSIS; MALE; MECHANICS; NONHUMAN; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; STRENGTH; WOUND HEALING; WOUND HEALING IMPAIRMENT;

ANASTOMOSIS, SURGICAL; ANIMALS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; INTESTINES; MALE; RATS; RATS, WISTAR; SIROLIMUS; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 33845701788     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000246078.09845.9c     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Rowinsky EK. Targetting the molecular target of rapamycin (mTOR). Curr Opin Oncol 2004; 16: 564.
2. dos Sarbassoy D, Ali SM, Sabatini DM. Growing roles for the mTOR pathway. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2005; 17: 596.
3. Easton JB, Houghton PJ. Therapeutic potential of target of rapamycin inhibitors. Exp Opin Ther Targets 2004; 8: 551.
4. Young DA, Nickerson-Nutter CL. mTOR beyond transplantation. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2005; 5: 418.
5. Valente JF, Hricik D, Weigel K, et al. Comparison of sirolimus vs. mycophenolate mofetil on surgical complications and wound healing in adult kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 1128.
6. Flechner SM, Zhou L, Derweesh I, et al. The impact of sirolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and steroids on wound healing in 513 kidney-transplant recipients. Transplantation 2003; 76: 1729.
7. Trotter JF, Wachs M, Bak T, et al. Liver transplantation using sirolimus and minimal corticosteroids (3-day taper). Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 343.
8. Fishbein TM, Florman S, Gondolesi G, et al. Intestinal transplantation before and after the introduction of sirolimus. Transplantation 2002; 73: 1538.
9. Kuppahally S, Al-Khaldi A, Weisshaar D, et al. Wound healing complications with de novo sirolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil-based regimen in cardiac transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 986.
10. Kobashigawa JA, Miller LW, Russell SD, et al. Tacrolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or sirolimus vs cyclosporin with MMF in cardiac transplant patients: 1-year report. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 1377.
11. Hoeben A, Landuyt B, Highly MS, Wildiers H, van Oosterom AT, de Bruijn EA. Vascular endothelial growth factor and angiogenesis. Pharmacol Rev 2004; 56: 549.
12. Byrne AM, Bouchier-Haynes DJ, Harmey JH. Angiogenic and cell survival functions of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). J Cell Mol Med 2005; 9: 777.
13. Posma LAE, Bleichrodt RP, van Goor H, Hendriks T. Ischemia and prolonged reperfusion prior to anastomotic construction do not reduce wound strength in the rat intestine. Surgery 2006; 139: 671.
14. de Hingh IH, van Goor H, de Man BM, Lomme RMLM, Bleichrodt RP, Hendriks T. Selective cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibition affects ileal but not colonic anastomotic healing in the early postoperative period. Br J Surg 2006; 93: 489.
15. de Waard JWD, Wobbes T, de Man BM, van der Linden CJ, Hendriks T. Postoperative levamisole may compromise early healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses. Br J Cancer 1995; 72: 456.
16. de Hingh IH, de Man BM, Lomme RMLM, van Goor H, Hendriks T. Colonic anastomotic strength and matrix metalloproteinase activity in an experimental model of bacterial peritonitis. Br J Surg 2003; 90: 981.
17. Verhofstad MHJ, Lange WP, van der Laak JAWM, Verhofstad AAJ, Hendriks T. Microscopic analysis of anastomotic healing in the intestine of normal and diabetic rats. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44: 423.
18. Dutly AE, Gaspert A, Inci I, Schneiter D, Korom S, Weder W. The influence of the rapamycin-derivate SDZ RAD on the healing of airway anastomoses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 24: 154.
19. Kahn D, Spearman CW, Mall A, Shepherd E, Engelbrecht G, Lotz Z, Tyler M. The effect of rapamycin on the healing of the ureteric anastomosis and wound healing. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 830.
20. Kahn D, Spearman CW, Mall A, et al. Effect of rapamycin on the healing of the bile duct. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 832.
21. Hendriks T, Mastboom WJB. Healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses: parameters for repair. Dis Colon Rectum 1990; 33: 891.
22. Witte MB, Barbul A. Repair of full-thickness bowel injury. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: S538.
23. Hausen B, Boeke K, Berry GJ, et al. Coadministration of neoral and the novel rapamycin analog, SDZ RAD, to rat lung allograft recipients: potentiation of immunosuppressive efficacy and improvement of tolerability of staggered versus simultaneous treatment. Transplantation 1999; 67: 956.
24. Johnson S, Qi S, Xu D, et al. Synergistic effects of RAD and Neoral in inhibition of host-vs-graft and graft-vs-host immune responses in rat small-bowel transplantation. Microsurgery 2003;23: 476-82.
25. Kneissel M, Luong-Nguyen NH, Baptist M, et al. Everolimus suppresses cancellous bone loss, bone resorption, and cathepsin K expression by osteoclasts. Bone 2004; 35: 1144.
26. Kovarik JM, Kaplan B, Tedesco Silva H, et al. Exposure-response relationships for everolimus in de novo kidney transplantation: defining a therapeutic range. Transplantation 2002; 73: 920.
27. Starling RC, Hare JM, Hauptman P, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus in heart transplant recipients based on exposure-effect modeling. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 2126.
28. Ravanti L, Kähäri VM. Matrix metalloproteinases in wound repair. Int J Mol Med 2000; 6: 391.
29. Seifert WF, Wobbes T, Hendriks T. Divergent patterns of matrix metalloproteinase activity during wound healing in ileum and colon of rats. Gut 1996; 39: 114.
30. Schäffer M, Barbul A. Lymphocyte function in wound healing and following injury. Br J Surg 1998; 85: 345.
31. Maasilta PK, Salminen US, Lautenschlager IT, Taskinen EI, Harjula AL. Immune cells and immunosuppression in a porcine bronchial model of obliterative bronchiolitis. Transplantation 2001; 72: 998.
32. Azzola A, Havryk A, Chhajed P, et al. Everolimus and mycophenolate mofetil are potent inhibitors of fibroblast proliferation after lung transplantation. Transplantation 2004; 77: 275.
33. de Waard JWD, Wobbes T, van der Linden CJ, Hendriks T. Vitamin A may promote 5-fluorouracil-suppressed healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses. Arch Surg 1995; 130: 959.
34. Kolk van der BM, de Man BM, Wobbes T, Hendriks T. Is early postoperative treatment with 5-fluorouracil possible without affecting anastomotic strength in the intestine? Br J Cancer 1999; 79: 545.
35. Vitko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety results from a study of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 2521.
36. Lorber MI, Mulgaonkar S, Butt KM, et al. Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients: a 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study. Transplantation 2005; 80: 244.
37. Dean PG, Lund WJ, Larson TS, et al. Wound-healing complications after kidney transplantation: a prospective, randomized comparison of sirolimus and tacrolimus. Transplantation 2004; 77: 1555-61.