4.6 Article

Biodegradable Patches for Arterial Reconstruction Modified with RGD Peptides: Results of an Experimental Study

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 5, 期 34, 页码 21700-21711

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c02593

关键词

-

资金

  1. Complex Program of Basic Research under the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences [0546-2019-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modification by Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) peptides is a promising approach to improve the biocompatibility of biodegradable vascular patches for arteriotomy. In this study, we evaluated the performance of vascular patches electrospun using a blend of polycaprolactone (PCL) and polyhydroxybutyrate/valerate (PHBV) and additionally modified with RGDK, AhRGD, and c[RGDFK] peptides using 1,6-hexamethylenediamine or 4,7,10-trioxa-1,13-tridecanediamine (TTDDA) linkers. We examined mechanical properties and hemocompatibility of resulting patches before implanting them in rat abdominal aortas to assess their performance in vivo. Patches were explanted 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperation followed by histological and immunofluorescence analyses. Patches manufactured from the human internal mammary artery or commercially available KemPeriplas-Neo xenopericardial patches were used as a control. The tensile strength and F-max of KemPeriplasNeo patches were 4- and 16.7-times higher than those made of human internal mammary artery, respectively. Both RGD-modified and unmodified PHBV/PCL patches demonstrated properties similar to a human internal mammary artery patch. Regardless of RGD modification, experimental PHBV/PCL patches displayed fewer lysed red blood cells and resulted in milder platelet aggregation than KemPeriplas-Neo patches. Xenopericardial patches failed to form an endothelial layer in vivo and were prone to calcification. By contrast, TTDDA/RGDK-modified biodegradable patches demonstrated a resistance to calcification. Modification by TTDDA/RGDK and TTDDA/c[RGDFK] facilitated the formation of neovasculature upon the implantation in vivo.

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

4.6
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