4.7 Article

Characterization of tissue responses and degradation behavior of heparin-immobilized copolymer for drug-eluting stents

期刊

POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY
卷 98, 期 5, 页码 1015-1021

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.02.004

关键词

Stent; Coating; Biodegradable; Tissue response

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2011CB503905]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai, China [11nm0504900, 12DZ1940604]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81101133, 81000044]
  4. Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau
  5. Shanghai Science and Technology Development [11QH1400500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been hypothesized that persistent presence of polymeric coating material may compromise the safety for drug-eluting stents, and that therefore a biodegradable coating might reduce late adverse events. In the present study, we explored the degradation behavior of heparin-immobilized copolymer of L-lactide (LA) and 5-methyl-5-benzyloxycarbonate-1,3-dioxan-2-one (MBC) coated stents and cast films by gel permeation chromatography (GPC), weight loss, light microscope, scanning electron microscope (SEM), and immunohistochemical staining in vitro and in vivo. The in vitro data indicated that the casting films lost 80% molecular weight and 20% of its mass within 16 weeks in PBS. The complete degradation of the coating material on the stent surface occurred within 16 weeks. The study also demonstrated similar degradation behaviors of the coating material in vivo conditions. There was no significant difference in extensive endothelialization and expression of inflammation-associated proteins such as monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and CD3 after 4 weeks post stent implantation. So the heparin-immobilized copolymer is an excellent candidate material for drug-eluting stents given its lack of permanent existence after drug release and minimal in vivo tissue responses. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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