Min-Seok Kim1, Saeromi Jeong1, Hong-Gook Lim1, Yong Jin Kim2. 1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea kyj@plaza.snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although bioprostheses are widely used in cardiovascular surgery, their durability is limited due to degeneration. Degeneration of bioprostheses limiting its clinical use results from multiple factors, and immune reaction has been considered to be one of the most important factors. The study objectives were to compare the mechanical characteristic differences of porcine and bovine prostheses, assess the differences in immune reaction among different species and tissues as well as elucidate bioprosthetic failure patterns in α-Gal knock-out (KO) and wild-type mouse implantation models. METHODS: Six groups of different xenogeneic tissues (porcine pericardium, aortic valve, aortic wall; bovine pericardium, aortic valve and aortic wall) were implanted into the subcutaneous tissue of the wild-type mouse (n = 4) and the KO mouse (n = 4) (four xenogeneic tissue segments per each mouse). Mechanical and chemical tests, including tensile strength measurement and thermal stability test for pericardial tissues and pronase test for different xenogeneic tissues, were performed before implantation. Anti-α-Gal antibody titres (IgM and IgG antibodies) were measured using serum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay analyses before implantation and 30, 60 and 90 days after implantation. Implanted tissues were harvested after 90 days and studied for histopathology and quantification of calcification. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in tensile strength and shrinkage temperature between the porcine and bovine pericardia, although the bovine pericardia showed a greater elasticity than the porcine pericardia (elongation at tensile strength, 74.8 ± 4.5% vs 50.0 ± 8.7%, P < 0.001). Resistance towards pronase degradation was not different among the groups of tissues (Groups 1-6, 89.1 ± 7.6, 95.1 ± 1.8, 90.3 ± 5.3, 93.7 ± 3.3, 89.1 ± 2.4 and 89.1 ± 3.0%, respectively; P = 0.061). The IgM titres of the α-Gal KO mice were significantly higher at 30 days after implantation (0.71 ± 0.27 vs 1.07 ± 0.48, P = 0.004), whereas the IgG titres of the α-Gal KO mice remained higher until 60 days after implantation (at 30 days, 0.81 ± 0.07 vs 1.28 ± 0.79, P = 0.017; at 60 days, 0.54 ± 0.16 vs 1.43 ± 1.10, P = 0.045) than those of the wild-type mice. Calcium levels of tissues implanted into the α-Gal KO mice were significantly higher than those implanted into the wild-type mice regardless of tissue type (from Groups 1-6, 4.72 ± 1.75 vs 27.76 ± 22.73 μg/mg; 3.05 ± 1.04 vs 15.90 ± 6.98 μg/mg; 2.13 ± 1.48 vs 29.76 ± 30.71 μg/mg; 1.02 ± 0.53 vs 5.97 ± 1.40 μg/mg; 3.18 ± 3.41 vs 30.55 ± 66.69 μg/mg; 6.21 ± 5.56 vs 21.65 ± 17.77 μg/mg, all P ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic immune response to the α-Gal antigen may cause more severe tissue calcification in α-Gal KO mice. Removal of α-Gal antigenicity is strongly advised in xenogeneic bioprosthetic tissue implantation.
OBJECTIVES: Although bioprostheses are widely used in cardiovascular surgery, their durability is limited due to degeneration. Degeneration of bioprostheses limiting its clinical use results from multiple factors, and immune reaction has been considered to be one of the most important factors. The study objectives were to compare the mechanical characteristic differences of porcine and bovine prostheses, assess the differences in immune reaction among different species and tissues as well as elucidate bioprosthetic failure patterns in α-Gal knock-out (KO) and wild-type mouse implantation models. METHODS: Six groups of different xenogeneic tissues (porcine pericardium, aortic valve, aortic wall; bovine pericardium, aortic valve and aortic wall) were implanted into the subcutaneous tissue of the wild-type mouse (n = 4) and the KO mouse (n = 4) (four xenogeneic tissue segments per each mouse). Mechanical and chemical tests, including tensile strength measurement and thermal stability test for pericardial tissues and pronase test for different xenogeneic tissues, were performed before implantation. Anti-α-Gal antibody titres (IgM and IgG antibodies) were measured using serum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay analyses before implantation and 30, 60 and 90 days after implantation. Implanted tissues were harvested after 90 days and studied for histopathology and quantification of calcification. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in tensile strength and shrinkage temperature between the porcine and bovine pericardia, although the bovine pericardia showed a greater elasticity than the porcine pericardia (elongation at tensile strength, 74.8 ± 4.5% vs 50.0 ± 8.7%, P < 0.001). Resistance towards pronase degradation was not different among the groups of tissues (Groups 1-6, 89.1 ± 7.6, 95.1 ± 1.8, 90.3 ± 5.3, 93.7 ± 3.3, 89.1 ± 2.4 and 89.1 ± 3.0%, respectively; P = 0.061). The IgM titres of the α-Gal KO mice were significantly higher at 30 days after implantation (0.71 ± 0.27 vs 1.07 ± 0.48, P = 0.004), whereas the IgG titres of the α-Gal KO mice remained higher until 60 days after implantation (at 30 days, 0.81 ± 0.07 vs 1.28 ± 0.79, P = 0.017; at 60 days, 0.54 ± 0.16 vs 1.43 ± 1.10, P = 0.045) than those of the wild-type mice. Calcium levels of tissues implanted into the α-Gal KO mice were significantly higher than those implanted into the wild-type mice regardless of tissue type (from Groups 1-6, 4.72 ± 1.75 vs 27.76 ± 22.73 μg/mg; 3.05 ± 1.04 vs 15.90 ± 6.98 μg/mg; 2.13 ± 1.48 vs 29.76 ± 30.71 μg/mg; 1.02 ± 0.53 vs 5.97 ± 1.40 μg/mg; 3.18 ± 3.41 vs 30.55 ± 66.69 μg/mg; 6.21 ± 5.56 vs 21.65 ± 17.77 μg/mg, all P ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic immune response to the α-Gal antigen may cause more severe tissue calcification in α-Gal KO mice. Removal of α-Gal antigenicity is strongly advised in xenogeneic bioprosthetic tissue implantation.
Authors: Joseph Platz; Nicholas R Bonenfant; Franziska E Uhl; Amy L Coffey; Tristan McKnight; Charles Parsons; Dino Sokocevic; Zachary D Borg; Ying-Wai Lam; Bin Deng; Julia G Fields; Michael DeSarno; Roberto Loi; Andrew M Hoffman; John Bianchi; Brian Dacken; Thomas Petersen; Darcy E Wagner; Daniel J Weiss Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Yufeng Mu; Anliang Shao; Li Shi; Bin Du; Yongjie Zhang; Jie Luo; Liming Xu; Shuxin Qu Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Thomas Senage; Anu Paul; Thierry Le Tourneau; Imen Fellah-Hebia; Marta Vadori; Salam Bashir; Manuel Galiñanes; Tomaso Bottio; Gino Gerosa; Arturo Evangelista; Luigi P Badano; Alberto Nassi; Cristina Costa; Galli Cesare; Rizwan A Manji; Caroline Cueff de Monchy; Nicolas Piriou; Romain Capoulade; Jean-Michel Serfaty; Guillaume Guimbretière; Etienne Dantan; Alejandro Ruiz-Majoral; Guénola Coste du Fou; Shani Leviatan Ben-Arye; Liana Govani; Sharon Yehuda; Shirley Bachar Abramovitch; Ron Amon; Eliran Moshe Reuven; Yafit Atiya-Nasagi; Hai Yu; Laura Iop; Kelly Casós; Sebastián G Kuguel; Arnau Blasco-Lucas; Eduard Permanyer; Fabrizio Sbraga; Roger Llatjós; Gabriel Moreno-Gonzalez; Melchor Sánchez-Martínez; Michael E Breimer; Jan Holgersson; Susann Teneberg; Marta Pascual-Gilabert; Alfons Nonell-Canals; Yasuhiro Takeuchi; Xi Chen; Rafael Mañez; Jean-Christian Roussel; Jean-Paul Soulillou; Emanuele Cozzi; Vered Padler-Karavani Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 87.241