4.5 Article

Biomechanical characterization of aortic valve tissue in humans and common animal models

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
卷 100A, 期 6, 页码 1591-1599

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34099

关键词

aortic valve; mechanical properties; animal trials; transcatheter aortic valve

资金

  1. State of Connecticut Department of Public Health [DPH 2010-0085, NIH HL108239, HL104080]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aortic valve disease develops in an escalating fashion in elderly patients. Current treatments including total valve replacement and valve repair techniques are still suboptimal. A thorough understanding of the animal and human valve tissue properties, particularly their differences, is crucial for the establishment of preclinical animal models and strategies for evaluating new valve treatment techniques, such as transcatheter valve intervention and tissue engineered valves. The goal of this study was to characterize and compare the biomechanical properties and histological structure of healthy ovine, porcine, and human aortic valve leaflets. The biaxial mechanical properties of the aortic valve leaflets of 10 ovine (similar to 1 year), 10 porcine (69 months), and 10 aged human (80.6 +/- 8.34) hearts were quantified. Tissue microstructure was analyzed via histological techniques. Aged human aortic valve leaflets were significantly less compliant than both ovine and porcine leaflets, with the ovine leaflets being the most compliant. Histological analysis revealed structural differences between the species: the human and porcine leaflets contained more collagen and elastin than the ovine leaflets. Significant mechanical and structural differences in the aortic valve tissues of 6- to 9-month-old porcine models and 1-year-old ovine models with respect to those of aged humans, suggest that these animal models may not be representative of the typical patient undergoing aortic valve replacement. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A, 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