4.8 Article

Hernocompatibility evaluation of poly(glycerol-sebacate) in vitro for vascular tissue engineering

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 27, 期 24, 页码 4315-4324

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.04.010

关键词

hemocompatibility; blood compatibility; coagulation; thrombosis; vascular grafts; tissue engineering

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R21HL071921] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poly(glycerol-sebacate) (PGS) is an elastomeric biodegradable polyester that could potentially be used to engineer blood vessels in vivo. However, its blood-material interactions are unknown. The objectives of this study were to: (a) fabricate PGS-based biphasic tubular scaffolds and (b) assess the blood compatibility of PGS in vitro in order to get some insight into its potential use in vivo. PGS was incorporated into biphasic scaffolds by dip-coating glass rods with PGS pre-polymer. The thrombogenicity (platelet adhesion and aggregation) and inflammatory potential (IL-1 beta and TNF alpha expression) of PGS were evaluated using fresh human blood and a human monocyte cell line (THP-1). The activation of the clotting system was assessed via measurement of tissue factor expression on THP-1 cells, plasma recalcification times, and whole blood clotting times. Glass, tissue culture plastic (TCP), poly(l-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA), and expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE) were used as reference materials. Biphasic scaffolds with PGS as the blood-contacting surface were successfully fabricated. Relative to glass (100%), platelet attachment on ePTFE, PLGA and PGS was 61%, 100%, and 28%, respectively. PGS elicited a significantly lower release of IL-1 beta and TNF alpha from THP-1 cells than ePTFE and PLGA. Similarly, relative to all reference materials, tissue factor expression by THP-1 cells was decreased when exposed to PGS. Plasma recalcification and whole blood clotting profiles of PGS were comparable to or better than those of the reference polymers tested. (c) 2006 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