4.5 Review

Cardiovascular tissue engineering: From basic science to clinical application

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 1-12

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2018.03.022

关键词

Regenerative medicine; Heart valve replacement; Tissue engineered heart valve; Transcatheter valve replacement; Tissue engineering; Translational research

资金

  1. Netherlands Cardio Vascular Research Initiative
  2. Dutch Heart Foundation
  3. Dutch Federation of University Medical Centres
  4. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development
  5. Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Valvular heart disease is an increasing population health problem and, especially in the elderly, a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. The current treatment options, such as mechanical and bioprosthetic heart valve replacements, have significant restrictions and limitations. Considering the increased life expectancy of our aging population, there is an urgent need for novel heart valve concepts that remain functional throughout life to prevent the need for reoperation. Heart valve tissue engineering aims to overcome these constraints by creating regenerative, self-repairing valve substitutes with life-long durability. In this review, we give an overview of advances in the development of tissue engineered heart valves, and describe the steps required to design and validate a novel valve prosthesis before reaching first-in-men clinical trials. In-silico and in-vitro models are proposed as tools for the assessment of valve design, functionality and compatibility, while in-vivo preclinical models are required to confirm the remodeling and growth potential of the tissue engineered heart valves. An overview of the tissue engineered heart valve studies that have reached clinical translation is also presented. Final remarks highlight the possibilities as well as the obstacles to overcome in translating heart valve prostheses into clinical application.

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