| Literature DB >> 17053986 |
Karen Mendelson1, Frederick J Schoen.
Abstract
Potential applications of tissue engineering in regenerative medicine range from structural tissues to organs with complex function. This review focuses on the engineering of heart valve tissue, a goal which involves a unique combination of biological, engineering, and technological hurdles. We emphasize basic concepts, approaches and methods, progress made, and remaining challenges. To provide a framework for understanding the enabling scientific principles, we first examine the elements and features of normal heart valve functional structure, biomechanics, development, maturation, remodeling, and response to injury. Following a discussion of the fundamental principles of tissue engineering applicable to heart valves, we examine three approaches to achieving the goal of an engineered tissue heart valve: (1) cell seeding of biodegradable synthetic scaffolds, (2) cell seeding of processed tissue scaffolds, and (3) in-vivo repopulation by circulating endogenous cells of implanted substrates without prior in-vitro cell seeding. Lastly, we analyze challenges to the field and suggest future directions for both preclinical and translational (clinical) studies that will be needed to address key regulatory issues for safety and efficacy of the application of tissue engineering and regenerative approaches to heart valves. Although modest progress has been made toward the goal of a clinically useful tissue engineered heart valve, further success and ultimate human benefit will be dependent upon advances in biodegradable polymers and other scaffolds, cellular manipulation, strategies for rebuilding the extracellular matrix, and techniques to characterize and potentially non-invasively assess the speed and quality of tissue healing and remodeling.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 17053986 PMCID: PMC1705506 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-006-9163-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Biomed Eng ISSN: 0090-6964 Impact factor: 3.934
Design objectives for and characteristics of replacement heart valves.
| Feature to optimize | Conventional (Mechanical, bioprosthetic) | Tissue engineered |
|---|---|---|
| Closure of leaflets | Rapid and complete | Rapid and complete |
| Size of orifice area | Less than that of natural valves | Better |
| Mechanical properties | Stable | Stable |
| Surgical insertion | Easy and permanent | Easy and permanent |
| Risk of thrombosis | Yes, especially mechanical valves, which require anticoagulation, causing vulnerability to hemorrhage | No; endothelial surface to inhibit thrombogenesis |
| Risk of structural dysfunction | Degradation of synthetic materials rare with mechanical valves | Resistant to degradation and calcification |
| Tissue degradation and calcification of leaflets with bioprosthetic valves | ||
| Risk of Infection | Ever present | Resistant to infection |
| Viability | No | Yes, able to repair injury, remodel, and potentially grow with patient |
FIGURE 1.Specialized ECM enables dynamic aortic valve function. (a) Photograph of the aortic valve in open and closed position (from the aorta). (b) Aortic valve histology emphasizing trilaminar structure and presence of valvular interstitial and endothelial cells. (c) Biomechanical cooperativity between elastin and collagen during valve motion. (d) Schematic depiction of layered aortic valve cuspal structure and configuration of collagen and elastin during systole and diastole. (a) and (b) reproduced by permission from Schoen FJ. “Valvular heart disease: General principles and stenosis,” IN: Cardiovascular Pathology, 3rd Ed, Silver MD, Gotlieb AI, Schoen FJ (eds.), WB Saunders 2001, pp. 402–442; (c) and (d) reproduced by permission from Schoen FJ. Aortic valve structure-function correlations: Role of elastic fibers no longer a stretch of the imagination. J Heart Valve Dis 6: 1–6, 1997.
Key structural elements of heart valves.
| Element | Sub-structure | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Extracellular matrix | Collagen | Provides strength and stiffness to maintain coaptation during diastole, when cusp has maximal area |
| Elastin | Extends in diastole; contracts in systole to minimize cusp area | |
| Glycosaminoglycans | Accomodates shear of cuspal layers, cushions shock during valve cycle | |
| Cells | Interstitial | Synthesize ECM; express MMPs and TIMPs that mediate matrix remodeling |
| Endothelial | Maintain nonthrombogenic blood-tissue interface; regulate immune and inflammatory reactions | |
| Blood vessels | Few and focal; valve cusps and leaflets sufficiently thin to be nourished by diffusion from the heart’s blood | |
| Nerves | Present, with uncertain function | |
| Other principles | Corrugations | Accordian-like folds in cusps; allows cuspal shape and dimensions to vary with cardiac cycle |
| Crimp | Microscopic collagen folding, allows lengthening at minimal stress | |
| Anisotropy | Permits differences in radial and circumferential extensibility | |
| Cords | Macroscopic collagen alignment; transfers forces from cusps to aortic wall |
FIGURE 2.Tissue engineering paradigms. (Pathway A) The conventional paradigm of tissue engineering comprises a scaffold that is seeded with cells, an in-vitro stage of tissue formation typically conducted in a bioreactor, and an in-vivo stage of tissue growth and remodeling. The key pathophysiological processes occurring during the in-vitro and in-vivo phases are cell proliferation, ECM production and organization, scaffold degradation, and tissue remodeling. The resulting tissue engineered construct will contain some combination of seeded and/or new cells. A modified paradigm (Pathway B) might utilize an unseeded scaffold that is fabricated with biological “information” designed to attract and provide a suitable substrate for differentiation of circulating precursor cells in-vivo.
Comparative analysis of scaffolds.
| Synthetic scaffolds | Natural scaffolds | |
|---|---|---|
| Advantages | Control of material structure and properties (e.g. pore size, stability, degradation rate) | Maintain architecture of the native tissue (potentially valve) |
| Easily reproduced | Maintain biological information (e.g., reactive sites, growth factors) | |
| Resorbable | Potentially resorbable | |
| Disadvantages | Difficulty in controlling cell adhesion and tissue reorganization | Decellularization may alter physical properties |
| Inflammation due to incomplete polymer degradation or lack of biocompatibility | Difficulty of cell penetration into interior | |
| Space formerly occupied by polymer and its interstices is replaced by fibrosis/scar | May induce immunologic reaction | |
| Limited perfusion to deep cells | Potential for calcification |
Representative, animal, and clinical implant studies using seeded and non-seeded matrices.
| Study | Scaffold | Cells | Site |
|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Shinoka (1995–96) | Polyglycolic acid (PGA) | Autologous ovine endothelial cells and fibroblasts | Replacement of one pulmonary valve (PV) leaflet in sheep |
| (B) Hoerstrup (2000) | Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) coated PGA | Autologous ovine endothelial cells and myofibroblasts | Replacement of all three PV leaflets in sheep |
| (C) Steinhoff (2000) | Decellularized pulmonary sheep valves | Autologous ovine endothelial cells and myofibroblasts | PV conduits implanted into sheep |
| (D) Dohmen (2002) | Decellularized cryopreserved pulmonary allograft | Autologous human vascular endothelial cells | Reconstruction of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) in a human patient |
| (E) Perry (2003) | P4HB coated PGA | Autologous ovine mesenchymal stem cells | In-vitro only, no |
| (F) Iwai (2004) | Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) compounded with collagen microsponge | Autologous endothelial and smooth muscle cells; w/ and w/o | Patch implant in canine pulmonary artery |
| (G) Sutherland (2005) | PGA and poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) | Autologous ovine mesenchymal stem cells | Replacement of all three PV leaflets in sheep |
| (A) Matheny (2000) | Porcine small intestinal submucosa | N/A | Replacement of one PV leaflet in a pig |
| (B) Elkins (2001) | Decellularized (using SynerGraft treatment) human (CryoValve SG) and sheep pulmonary valves | N/A | SynerGraft-treated and cryopreserved sheep PVs implanted in RVOT in sheep; CryoValve SG human PVs implanted in patients |
| (C) Simon (2003) | Decellularized porcine Synergraft valve | N/A | Implanted in RVOT in children |
FIGURE 3.A representative hypothesis for the population of a tissue engineered heart valve by endogenous cells. Key processes include proliferation, differentiation, and mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells within the bone marrow, followed by recruitment in the blood and adhesion to the valve. Subsequently, recruited cells might undergo an epithelial to mesenchymal transdifferentiation within the valve (recapitulating development), followed by differentiation to interstitial cells that ultimately synthesize and remodel the ECM.
FIGURE 4.Paradigm for translating research in heart valve tissue engineering from the laboratory to the clinic. Biomarkers for cell and tissue characterization in conjunction with structural, chemical and molecular information obtained via in-vitro and in-vivo models are necessary for understanding key biological processes in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. These concepts and data can be used to predict and measure patient success and failure. Data from clinical experience further informs the development of appropriate biomarkers, which may result in reassessment of the appropriate characterization parameters.
FIGURE 5.A hypothesis for inter-individual variability in tissue remodeling. While most individuals will remodel tissue with a usual speed and quality of remodeling, some people will display slow and poor quality of remodeling while others will show fast and better quality of remodeling. Inadequate remodeling could lead to implant failure and its consequences for the patient. The threshold of properties needed for tissue engineered heart valves and the means of conducting post-implantation surveillance of the patient and graft need to consider this variability. Success or failure may be followed and predicted non-invasively.
Critical challenges to clinical translation of heart valve tissue engineering.
| Challenges | Strategy for translation |
|---|---|
| TEHV components and function are complex, heterogeneous and dynamic | Develop guidelines for the pre-implantation characterization of TEHV structure, function and quality |
| TEHV function depends upon patient response to implantation and integration with the recipient’s tissues more than conventional valve replacement | Identify/validate biomarkers predictive of implant success/failure and capable of non-invasive |
| Individuals differ in the speed and effectiveness of their tissue remodeling | Assess/control patient variability in tissue remodeling capability |
| Owing to the key role of patient response, animal models may not reliably predict human outcomes | Validate suitable animal models that will test key biological processes and correlate with human outcomes |
| Remodeling processes after implantation may release or change seeded cells and recruit host cells | Develop tools to monitor the fate of transplanted and endogenous cells (location, function, viability, phenotype) |