Why the study?
Atherosclerosis causes coronary syndrome, predisposing to perioperative complications, but the potential benefits of the widely used perioperative drug parecoxib on atherosclerosis progression were unknown.
Does parecoxib improve atherosclerotic plaque stability in Apo E-/- mice on a western diet?
Does parecoxib improve atherosclerotic plaque stability in Apo E-/- mice on a western diet?
Parecoxib may improve atherosclerotic plaque stability by suppressing inflammation and inhibiting matrix metalloproteinase production in a murine model.
Does not support clinical use; leaves open translation of plaque effects to human atherosclerosis.
With the aging population, coronary syndrome is one of the leading causes of mortality. Atherosclerosis is the pathophysiological basis of coronary syndrome, which is caused by plaque rupture and predisposed or aggravated by many perioperative complications. Parecoxib is one of the most widely used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory perioperative drugs. This study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of parecoxib on atherosclerosis progression. Apolipoprotein E-deficient (Apo E-/-) mice were intraperitoneally injected by parecoxib (par group) or saline (control group) and, meanwhile, were given a western diet for 12 weeks. The aorta and aortic root were examined by oil red O (ORO) staining for atherosclerotic lesions. The expression level of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), was investigated using immunofluorescence and western blot. Macrophage inflammation was investigated by Q-PCR. Parecoxib treatment increased the number of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMC) and amount of collagen, while and decreased the number of macrophages in murine aortic walls. The expression of MMP1, 2, 9, and 13 as well as IL- 1β and IL-6 were also decreased in the par group. However, there was no statistical difference in lipid infiltration between the two groups. Parecoxib could improve plaque stability by suppressing inflammation and inhibiting MMPs production.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gong et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: