4.5 Article

In Vitro Haemocompatibility Evaluation of PET Surfaces Using the Quartz Crystal Microbalance Technique

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1163/092050611X559232

关键词

Haemocompatibility; QCM-D; sulphated polysaccharide; PET; surface

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia [3211-10-000057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Owing to the complex influences of several experimental conditions on the in vitro alteration of blood, there is still a lack of viable in vitro tests and methods for blood compatibility evaluation of biomaterials. The aim of this research was to study a new approach for the haemocompatibility assessment of differently modified PET surfaces using the quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation unit (QCM-D) technique and measure the mass increase caused by clot formation under physiological conditions. For this purpose some of the most frequently applied in vitro methods for haemocompatibility determination, i.e., clotting time measurement and observation of red blood cells' mobility, were applied and their accuracy and sensitivity compared to the new QCM-D approach. Haemocompatibility was evaluated for non-modified poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) surfaces and PET surfaces coated with dextran sulphate and heparin. The basic anticoagulant properties of heparin and dextran sulphate were analysed by means of their activated partial thromboplastine time (APTT). PET, as well as different polysaccharides coatings were chosen for this study due to their promising biocompatible properties and numerous possibilities for biomedical applications. The results showed that the new QCM-D technique to study clot formation in contact with PET surfaces under physiological environment was the most informative and accurate for in vitro haemocompatibility assessment. Although the results achieved with the other two methods were in good correlation, they did not provide such a high level of sensitivity. (C) Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据