| Literature DB >> 35135545 |
John Joseph1,2, Vito Domenico Bruno1, Nadiah Sulaiman1, Alexander Ward1, Thomas W Johnson1, Helna Mary Baby2, Praveen Kerala Varma3, Rajesh Jose3, Shantikumar V Nair2, Deepthy Menon4, Sarah Jane George5, Raimondo Ascione6.
Abstract
Globally, millions of patients are affected by myocardial infarction or lower limb gangrene/amputation due to atherosclerosis. Available surgical treatment based on vein and synthetic grafts provides sub-optimal benefits. We engineered a highly flexible and mechanically robust nanotextile-based vascular graft (NanoGraft) by interweaving nanofibrous threads of poly-L-lactic acid to address the unmet need. The NanoGrafts were rendered impervious with selective fibrin deposition in the micropores by pre-clotting. The pre-clotted NanoGrafts (4 mm diameter) and ePTFE were implanted in a porcine carotid artery replacement model. The fibrin-laden porous milieu facilitated rapid endothelization by the transmural angiogenesis in the NanoGraft. In-vivo patency of NanoGrafts was 100% at 2- and 4-weeks, with no changes over time in lumen size, flow velocities, and minimal foreign-body inflammatory reaction. However, the patency of ePTFE at 2-week was 66% and showed marked infiltration, neointimal thickening, and poor host tissue integration. The study demonstrates the in-vivo feasibility and safety of a thin-layered vascular prosthesis, viz., NanoGraft, and its potential superiority over the commercial ePTFE.Entities:
Keywords: Coronary surgery; Electrospinning; Endothelialisation; In-vivo feasibility; Nanofibers; Nanotextile; Nanotextile vascular prosthesis; Small diameter vascular grafts; Tissue engineering; Vascular graft failure; Vascular surgery
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35135545 PMCID: PMC8822766 DOI: 10.1186/s12951-022-01268-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nanobiotechnology ISSN: 1477-3155 Impact factor: 9.429
Fig. 1Fabrication and in vitro characterization of the NanoGraft. a spool of nanofibrous yarns b fabrication of tightly packed woven conduits using multiple electrospun yarns c optical image of the NanoGraft (inset shows the SEM micrographs of the nanotextile) d, e physical properties of NanoGraft compared to the commercial ePTFE graft g–i adherence of HUVECs on the NanoGraft under dynamic flow conditions g Alamar assay showing cell distribution in the NanoGraft h the percentage of cells adhered on the NanoGraft under dynamic conditions for 24 and 48 h i SEM micrographs of the NanoGraft showing cell coverage
Fig. 2In-vivo implantation and imaging assessment of ePTFE and NanoGraft grafts: a direct representative picture of the ePTFE graft with oozing from suture line and NanoGraft with no oozing. Inset shows the OCT image of the patent grafts. Representative 2D Doppler of the longitudinal and cross-sectional view of b ePTFE and c NanoGrafts (distance A- 3.8 mm, B-0.7 mm), with the corresponding qualitative and quantitative evaluation of blood flow through the grafts (bottom in b and c). d 2D Doppler of the longitudinal and cross-sectional view of the occluded ePTFE grafts (blue arrows depict the regions with adherent clots) and its corresponding optical image. e Quantitative evaluation of blood flow through the patent synthetic grafts before and after implantation
Fig. 3Histological and histomorphometry evaluation of the implanted synthetic grafts after 2 weeks of implantation. H&E staining of the midsection of NanoGraft a entire graft Sect. (1.25×) b cell lining on the luminal surface of NanoGraft (depicted by red arrows) c abluminal surface of the graft with a minimal inflammatory response). d–e H&E staining of the midsection of ePTFE grafts d entire graft Sect. (1.25×) e cell lining on the luminal surface of ePTFE (depicted by red arrows) f abluminal surface of the graft with high inflammatory cells g Neointimal area h Percentage of graft stenosis and i Transluminal wall thickness, of the implanted synthetic grafts. Statistical significance between the two groups was assessed using a paired t-test. Error bars represent standard deviation. P-value of each comparison is depicted in the plot
Fig. 4Transmural endothelialisation in biodegradable vascular NanoGraft. a Illustration of transmural capillary in-growth through the porous woven structure of the nanotextile graft. b SEM micrograph showing endothelial coverage on the entire surface of the graft (inset low magnification). Confocal images of the explanted NanoGraft c en face staining on the luminal surface of the NanoGraft showing complete endothelial coverage with tight junctions d cross-sectional view of vascular graft showing an abundance of infiltrated cells stained for nuclei (DAPI-blue) e Immunohistofluorescence staining of the mid-portion of NanoGraft. Tissues stained for nuclei—DAPI (blue), Endothelial cells—Wheat germ agglutinin (green). f Presence of circumferentially aligned smooth muscle cells (alpha-smooth muscle actin-red) on the abluminal surface of the graft. g Neocapillaries formed at the abluminal side of NanoGraft (400×). H&E staining shows neocapillary in-growth in the h abluminal and i luminal regions of the porous nanotextile graft
Fig. 5Histological analysis of the NanoGraft showing an increase in neocapillary formation, elastin, collagen, and glycosaminoglycans after 2 and 4 weeks of implantation. a H&E staining b Masson-Trichrome staining for collagen (bluish-green) c Verhoeff-Van Gieson staining for elastin content (blue-black) and d Alcian blue stain for mucopolysaccharide (light blue)