| Literature DB >> 27877785 |
Muthu Vignesh Vellayappan1, Arunpandian Balaji1, Aruna Priyadarshini Subramanian1, Agnes Aruna John1, Saravana Kumar Jaganathan1, Selvakumar Murugesan2, Hemanth Mohandas3, Eko Supriyanto1, Mustafa Yusof1.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease claims millions of lives every year throughout the world. Biomaterials are used widely for the treatment of this fatal disease. With the advent of nanotechnology, the use of nanocomposites has become almost inevitable in the field of biomaterials. The versatile properties of nanocomposites, such as improved durability and biocompatibility, make them an ideal choice for various biomedical applications. Among the various nanocomposites, polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-poly(carbonate-urea)urethane, bacterial cellulose with polyvinyl alcohol, carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide and nano-hydroxyapatite nanocomposites have gained popularity as putative choices for biomaterials in cardiovascular applications owing to their superior properties. In this review, various studies performed utilizing these nanocomposites for improving the mechanical strength, anti-calcification potential and hemocompatibility of heart valves are reviewed and summarized. The primary motive of this work is to shed light on the emerging nanocomposites for heart valve applications. Furthermore, we aim to promote the prospects of these nanocomposites in the campaign against cardiovascular diseases.Entities:
Keywords: anti-calcification; heart-valve; hemocompatiblity; mechanical-strength; nanocomposites
Year: 2015 PMID: 27877785 PMCID: PMC5099822 DOI: 10.1088/1468-6996/16/3/033504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Technol Adv Mater ISSN: 1468-6996 Impact factor: 8.090
Figure 1.Biomaterials used for different heart valve components.
Figure 2.Structures of fillers in nanocomposites for heart valve applications.
Figure 3.Anti-calcification properties enhanced by POSS inclusion in PCU.
Nanocomposites used for cardiovascular heart valve applications.
| Study No. | Matrix material | Nanofiller | Key properties | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bacteria culture media | Hydroxyapatite (HA) powder, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) nanoparticles | An increase in the mechanical strength of the resultant nanocomposite. | [ |
| 2 | Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) | Bacterial cellulose (BC) | Improves the mechanical strength of the biocompatible material. | [ |
| A broader range of mechanical properties and higher strength. | [ | |||
| The blood compatibility of the PVA–BC nanocomposite was improved. | [ | |||
| 3 | Poly(carbonate-urea)urethane (PCU) | Polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) | Improved tensile strength, tear resistance, hardness, elasticity properties, tear resistance and hardness. | [ |
| The strength and hardness of the PCU increased due to the inclusion of POSS particles. | [ | |||
| A strong framework with shorter bond lengths exists between nanocomposites providing them with additional resistance to degradation. | [ | |||
| Enhancement of creep and compression set properties. | [ | |||
| The maximum tensile strength and elongation at the break were found to be smaller in the PU than the POSS–PCU. | [ | |||
| Calcification occurred in regions of maximum mechanical stress in comparison to the peripheral regions near the clamping. | [ | |||
| POSS nanoparticles increase the hydrophobicity of the surface, thus it may be assumed that POSS has a repellent effect on mineral deposition. | [ | |||
| Protein and platelet adhesion was minimized. | [ | |||
| A silica layer on the surface of PU protects the POSS–PCU from further degradation. | [ | |||
| Inclusion of POSS in PU improved the hydrophobicity of PU. | [ | |||
| The roughness of the surface increases the contact angle. | [ | |||
| 4 | Poly(lactic-co-glycolic-acid) (PLGA) | Carbon nanofibers (CNFs) | Cardiomyocyte function increased on CNF-enriched composites. | [ |
| 5 | Propylene fumarate (PPF) | Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) | The inclusion of SWCNTs in the PPF polymer improves the mechanical properties of the PPF. | [ |
| Very low concentrations of SWCNTs in the PPF polymer matrix improve the compressive and flexural characteristics of the nanocomposite up to two- to threefold compared to PPF alone. | [ | |||
| 6 | Polymer fibers | Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) | Improved tensile strength compared to pure CNT fibers or the CNT–polymer fibers synthesized. | [ |
| 7 | Polyamide 6 (PA6) | Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) | Enhanced storage modulus and loss modulus of the CNT–PA6 nanocomposite. | [ |
| Inclusion of up to 2 wt% CNTs in CNT–PA6 laminates enhanced the flexural stress of the laminates up to 36%. | [ | |||
| 8 | Polystyrene (PS) | CNTs | Young’s modulus of CNT–PS nanocomposites was improved by 22%. | [ |
| 9 | Polyurethane (PU) | MWCNTs | Two-fold and ten-fold increases in tensile strength and Young’s modulus. | [ |
| The inclusion of MWCNTs improved the tensile strength and modulus of the composite nanofibers by 69% and 140%. | [ | |||
| 10 | Alumina | CNTs | The resultant nanocomposite surface displayed appreciably enhanced anticoagulant function. | [ |
| The mechanical strength was improved as follows: Young’s modulus, 383 GPa; Vickers hardness, 19.9 GPa; and bending strength, 578 MPa. | [ | |||
| 11 | Zirconia | MWCNTs | Higher density, smaller grain size, enhanced toughness and improved hardness. | [ |
| 12 | Zein fibers | SWCNTs | Improved hemolytic and platelet adhesion characteristics. | [ |
| 13 | Polycarbonate based PU | nHA | Nanorods prepared using a PPG assisted method displayed a greater aspect ratio and tremendous uniformity. | [ |
| The tensile strength, Young’s modulus and percentage of elongation of the nHA filled TPUs improved. | [ | |||
| Cell spreading and cellular processes are improved for nHA filled TPU. | [ | |||
| Prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are increased. | [ | |||
| Hemolysis of nanocomposite samples demonstrated less than 1% hemolysis. | [ | |||
| 14 | PVA | Graphene oxide (GO) | A 132% improvement in tensile strength and a 36% enhancement of compressive strength were achieved with inclusion of 0.8 wt% of GO. | [ |
| 15 | 2(methacryloyloxy)ethyl phosphorylcholine (GO–MPC) | GO complexes | The tensile strength and elongation of PE/GO–MPC nanocomposites were improved by 15.5 and 97.3%. | [ |
| 16 | Nanocrystalline cellulose acetate (NCCA) | GO | A 61.92% increase in tensile strength compared with plain NCCA. | [ |
| 17 | Epoxy resin | 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 wt % pristine graphene | In the case of 4 wt % GO in the resin, the tensile modulus, compressive strength and flexural modulus of carbon fiber composites were enhanced by 15% (21%), 34% (84%) and 40% (68%), respectively. | [ |
| 18 | 2-(methacryloyloxy) ethyl phosphorylcholine and PU(PU/GO–g-pMPC) | GO | Inclusion of a very small amount of GO can improve the mechanical properties of PU. | [ |
| Protein adsorption test and platelet adhesion test results show improved hemocompatibility. | [ | |||
| 19 | Glutamic acid (Glu) | Carboxylated GO (GO–COOH) | Recalcification time was delayed greatly in the whole blood and the hemolysis rates were lower than 5%. | [ |
| 20 | Unfractioned heparin (UFH) | Graphene | Graphene–UFH conjugate displays an improved FXa activity of 29.6 IU mL−1. | [ |
Figure 4.Properties enhanced by nanocomposites for heart valve applications.
Figure 5.Properties enhanced by inclusion of nanofillers in the resultant nanocomposites.