| Literature DB >> 36080517 |
María A Rodríguez-Soto1, Camilo A Polanía-Sandoval2,3, Andrés M Aragón-Rivera1, Daniel Buitrago1, María Ayala-Velásquez1, Alejandro Velandia-Sánchez2,3, Gabriela Peralta Peluffo1, Juan C Cruz1, Carolina Muñoz Camargo1, Jaime Camacho-Mackenzie2, Juan Guillermo Barrera-Carvajal2, Juan Carlos Briceño1,4.
Abstract
Vascular grafts (VGs) are medical devices intended to replace the function of a blood vessel. Available VGs in the market present low patency rates for small diameter applications setting the VG failure. This event arises from the inadequate response of the cells interacting with the biomaterial in the context of operative conditions generating chronic inflammation and a lack of regenerative signals where stenosis or aneurysms can occur. Tissue Engineered Vascular grafts (TEVGs) aim to induce the regeneration of the native vessel to overcome these limitations. Besides the biochemical stimuli, the biomaterial and the particular micro and macrostructure of the graft will determine the specific behavior under pulsatile pressure. The TEVG must support blood flow withstanding the exerted pressure, allowing the proper compliance required for the biomechanical stimulation needed for regeneration. Although the international standards outline the specific requirements to evaluate vascular grafts, the challenge remains in choosing the proper biomaterial and manufacturing TEVGs with good quality features to perform satisfactorily. In this review, we aim to recognize the best strategies to reach suitable mechanical properties in cell-free TEVGs according to the reported success of different approaches in clinical trials and pre-clinical trials.Entities:
Keywords: biodegradable; biomaterials; biomechanical stimulation; mechanical properties; tissue engineered vascular grafts
Year: 2022 PMID: 36080517 PMCID: PMC9460130 DOI: 10.3390/polym14173440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Structure and layers of blood vessels. Graph created with BioRender.com (accessed on 29 May 2022).
Figure 2Component percentages on small-sized blood vessels for (a) tunica adventitia and (b) tunica media. Data from small-sized vessels retrieved from D.B. Camasão et al. [12]. Fibroblasts (FBs) and smooth muscle cells (SMCs). Image created with BioRender.com and graph constructed with GraphPad Prism (accessed on 29 May 2022).
Mechanical properties in blood vessels: internal mammary artery (IMA) and great saphenous vein (GSV).
| Test Performed | IMA | GSV | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal diameter (mm) | 3.50 | 3 | [ |
| Wall Thickness (µM) | 710 | 518 | [ |
| Circumferential tensile Strength (KPa) | 4100 | 2405 | [ |
| Longitudinal tensile Strength (KPa) | 4300 | 9760 | [ |
| Burst pressure (KPa) | 266 | 371.96 | [ |
| Suture Retention Strength (g) | 138 | 327 | [ |
| Dynamic Compliance (%/100 mmHg) | 5.22 | 4.40 | [ |
Figure 3Comparison of the mechanical properties of the internal mammary artery (IMA) and great saphenous vein (GSV) as vascular grafts. Identified mechanical properties include internal diameter (ID), wall thickness (WT), longitudinal tensile strength (LTS), circumferential tensile strength (CTS), suture retention strength (SRS), burst pressure (BP), and dynamic compliance (DC). Chart generated from the Python library developed by StatsBomb/Anmol Durgapal (accessed on 29 May 2022) [29].
Mechanical properties in average commercial PTFE vascular grafts for Arteriovenous Fistula with 6 mm internal diameter.
| Test Performed | Average Value | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Relaxed internal diameter (mm) | 6 2 | [ |
| Pressurized Internal Diameter (mm) | 6 2 | [ |
| Wall Thickness (mm) | 0.39 2 | [ |
| Porosity (%) | 50 | [ |
| Void area (µM) 1 | 20–500 | [ |
| Water permeability (mL·cm2/min) | 4320 | [ |
| Circumferential tensile Strength (KPa) | 16,000 2–20,590 3 | [ |
| Longitudinal tensile Strength (KPa) | 15,630 2–41,480 3 | [ |
| Burst Strength (kPa) | 361 | [ |
| Suture Retention Strength (g) | 480 | [ |
| Dynamic Compliance (%/mmHg) | 2.1 | [ |
| Strength After Puncture (KPa)/ # Punctures | 19,220/0 | [ |
1 Minimum value and maximum value to maintain tissue integration. 2 Non-stretchable PTFE VGs. 3 Stretchable PTFE VGs.
Figure 4Mechanical properties comparison of the great saphenous vein, as a gold standard, and PTFE. Mechanical properties identified include Internal diameter (ID), wall thickness (WT), longitudinal tensile strength (LTS), circumferential tensile strength (CTS), suture retention strength (SRS), burst pressure (BP), and dynamic compliance (DC). Chart generated from the Python library developed by StatsBomb/Anmol Durgapal (accessed on 29 May 2022) [29].
Figure 5Effect of compliance on flow patterns and wall shear stress at the distal anastomosis in a VGs. Data retrieved from Post A, et al. [45] Image created with BioRender.com (accessed on 29 May 2022).
Effect pf baseline and low WSS over endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and macrophages gene expression.
| Endothelial Cells Genes | Smooth Muscle Cells Genes | Macrophage Genes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wall Shear Stress (N/m2) | Down-Regulated | Up-Regulated | Down-Regulated | Up-Regulated | Down-Regulated | Up-Regulated | |
| Physiological Limits | 1.5–2.4 | E-Selectin | KLF-2 | P21 | Ciclyn D1 | Leukocyte | M2 phenotype |
| TXNIP | ERK | BMP4 | AKT | CD206 | |||
| PKC | P38 | SMAD | IL-11 | IL-10 | |||
| JNK | ERK | TGF-β1 | |||||
| TNFa | CD31 | ||||||
| eNOS | |||||||
| vWF | |||||||
| Low limits | 0.1–1 | eNOS | VCAM-1 | a-SMA | Prolifferative | M2 phenotype | M1 Phenotype |
| NOX4 | ICAM-1 | SM22 | MMP2 | NF-κB | |||
| NOTCH1 | EDN-1 | SMTN | TGF-β1 | IL-1 | |||
| MCP-1 | CNN | PDGF | MCP-1 | ||||
| PDGF | Selectin | ||||||
| MMP2-9 | |||||||
Data obtained and complemented from Rodriguez-Soto, et al. [14].
Mechanical properties in blood vessels: grafts in clinical trials (CT grafts) and great saphenous vein (GSV).
| Test Performed | CT Grafts | GSV | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Diameter (mm) | 5 | 3 | [ |
| Wall Thickness (µM) | 690 | 518 | [ |
| Circumferential Tensile Strength (KPa) | 2380 | 2405 | [ |
| Longitudinal Tensile Strength (KPa) | 4230 | 9760 | [ |
| Burst Pressure (KPa) | 405.17 | 371.96 | [ |
| Suture Retention Strength (g) | 306 | 327 | [ |
| Dynamic Compliance (%/100 mmHg) | 1.53 | 4.40 | [ |
Figure 6(A) Mechanical properties comparison of great saphenous vein, as a gold standard, and grafts in clinical trials. Mechanical properties identified include internal diameter (ID), wall thickness (WT), longitudinal tensile strength (LTS), circumferential tensile strength (CTS), suture retention strength (SRS), burst pressure (BP), and dynamic compliance (DC). Chart generated from the Python library developed by StatsBomb/Anmol Durgapal (accessed on 29 May 2022) [29]. (B) Mechanical properties comparison of great saphenous vein, as a gold standard, internal mammary artery, and each graft made in clinical trials. Circumferential tensile strength (CTS), longitudinal tensile strength (LTS), suture retention strength (SRS), internal mammary artery (IMA), and great saphenous vein (GSV). Data are according to literature reports of a representative data set. Additional information regarding descriptive analysis can be found in Table S1. Graph generated with GraphPad Prism (accessed on 29 May 2022).
Mechanical properties in blood vessels: Poly(ɛ-Caprolactone) tested in vivo (PCL in vivo) and great saphenous vein (GSV).
| Test Performed | PCL In Vivo | GSV | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Diameter (mm) | 2.17 | 3 | [ |
| Wall Thickness (µM) | 400 | 518 | [ |
| Circumferential Tensile Strength (KPa) | 6440 | 2405 | [ |
| Longitudinal Tensile Strength (KPa) | 8400 | 9760 | [ |
| Burst Pressure (KPa) | 348.22 | 371.96 | [ |
| Suture Retention Strength (g) | 124 | 327 | [ |
| Dynamic Compliance (%/100 mmHg) | 2.63 | 4.40 | [ |
Figure 7(A) Mechanical properties comparison of great saphenous vein, as a gold standard, and Poly(ɛ-Caprolactone) tested in vivo. Mechanical properties identified include internal diameter (ID), wall thickness (WT), longitudinal tensile strength (LTS), circumferential tensile strength (CTS), suture retention strength (SRS), burst pressure (BP), and dynamic compliance (DC). Chart generated from the Python library developed by StatsBomb/Anmol Durgapal (accessed on 29 May 2022). (B) Mechanical properties comparison of great saphenous vein, as a gold standard, internal mammary artery and each graft made in clinical trials. Circumferential tensile strength (CTS), longitudinal tensile strength (LTS), suture retention strength (SRS), Decellularized (Descel), internal mammary artery (IMA), and great saphenous vein (GSV). Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation, according to the number of studies reporting the data. Additional information regarding descriptive analysis can be found on Table S2. Graph generated with GraphPad Prism (accessed on 29 May 2022).
Figure 8(A) Mechanical properties comparison of great saphenous vein, as a gold standard, (a) PCL, (b) TPU, and (c) PLGA tested in vitro. Mechanical properties identified include internal diameter (ID), wall thickness (WT), longitudinal tensile strength (LTS), circumferential tensile strength (CTS), suture retention strength (SRS), burst pressure (BP), and dynamic compliance (DC). Chart generated from the Python library developed by StatsBomb/Anmol Durgapal (accessed on 29 May 2022). (B) Mechanical properties comparison of great saphenous vein, as a gold standard, internal mammary artery and PCL, TPU, and PLGA subgroups of in vitro studies. Circumferential tensile strength (CTS), longitudinal tensile strength (LTS), suture retention strength (SRS), internal mammary artery (IMA), and great saphenous vein (GSV). Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation, according to the number of studies reporting the data. Additional information regarding descriptive analysis can be found on Table S3. Graph generated with GraphPad Prism (accessed on 29 May 2022).
Mechanical properties in blood vessels: PCL, TPU, and PLGA tested in vitro (PCL in vivo) and great saphenous vein (GSV).
| Test Performed | PCL In Vitro | TPU In Vitro | PLGA In Vitro | GSV | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Diameter (mm) | 4.59 | 3.83 | 4 | 3 | [ |
| Wall Thickness (µM) | 580 | 540 | 330 | 518 | [ |
| Circumferential Tensile Strength (KPa) | 13,360 | 2570 | 8350 | 2405 | [ |
| Longitudinal Tensile Strength (KPa) | 15,170 | 11,320 | 5010 | 9760 | [ |
| Burst Pressure (KPa) | 264.51 | 451.29 | 312.84 | 371.96 | [ |
| Suture Retention Strength (g) | 1034 | 803 | 1050 | 327 | [ |
| Dynamic Compliance (%/100 mmHg) | 5.42 | NR | 3.41 | 4.40 | [ |