4.8 Article

The effect of polymer degradation time on functional outcomes of temporary elastic patch support in ischemic cardiomyopathy

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 34, 期 30, 页码 7353-7363

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.06.020

关键词

Polyurethane; Polycarbonate; Biodegradation; Heart; Elastomer; Scaffold

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH), BRP [HL069368]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biodegradable polyurethane patches have been applied as temporary mechanical supports to positively alter the remodeling and functional loss following myocardial infarction. How long such materials need to remain in place is unclear. Our objective was to compare the efficacy of porous onlay support patches made from one of three types of biodegradable polyurethane with relatively fast (poly(ester urethane) urea; PEUU), moderate (poly(ester carbonate urethane)urea; PECUU), and slow (poly(carbonate urethane)urea; PCUU) degradation rates in a rat model of ischemic cardiomyopathy. Microporous PEUU, PECUU or PCUU (n = 10 each) patches were implanted over left ventricular lesions 2 wk following myocardial infarction in rat hearts. Infarcted rats without patching and age-matched healthy rats (n = 10 each) were controls. Echocardiography was performed every 4 wk up to 16 wk, at which time hemodynamic and histological assessments were performed. The end-diastolic area for the PEUU group at 12 and 16 wk was significantly larger than for the PECUU or PCUU groups. Histological analysis demonstrated greater vascular density in the infarct region for the PECUU or PCUU versus PEUU group at 16 wk. Improved left ventricular contractility and diastolic performance in the PECUU group was observed at 16 wk compared to infarction controls. The results indicate that the degradation rate of an applied elastic patch influences the functional benefits associated patch placement, with a moderately slow degrading PECUU patch providing improved outcomes. (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

4.8
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