4.8 Review

Implanted cardiovascular polymers: Natural, synthetic and bio-inspired

期刊

PROGRESS IN POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 33, 期 9, 页码 853-874

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.07.001

关键词

Vascular graft; Endothelial cell seeding; Expanded poly(tetrafluoroethylene); Polyester; Poly(L-lactide); Biodegradable stent; Drug-eluting stent; Vessel patency; Artificial proteins; Collagen and elastin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review details the use of polymeric biomaterials used in implantable cardiovascular devices. Specifically, the role of the polymer in two major types of device, the vascular graft and the cardiovascular stent, is examined critically. In these two devices, the device performance is critically dependent on the polymer; the material requirements are detailed, and the shortcomings of currently used polymers highlighted with a view to furthering the development of new materials. In each category, synthetic polymers, polymers of natural origin, and polymers that mimic proteins but are synthesized, have all been evaluated with varying degrees of success. We find that the totally artificial graft is still the preferred option when autologous vessels are not available; the development of a completely tissue-engineered graft awaits improvements in scaffold materials as well as in tissue reactor engineering. In the field of stents, current consensus is driving the substitution of a biodegradable, polymeric stent for the biostable metallic one. Although various biodegradable polymers have been evaluated, the hydrolytically degradable polyesters continue to be the polymer of choice. New developments in biodegradable polymers are highlighted, and their performance in terms of biocompatibility, and controlled degradability are presented. The outlook for the next decade appears hopeful, with improvements in cell-seeding and cell growth techniques expected to enhance the performance of both types of implanted device. (c) 2008 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

4.8
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