4.2 Article

Biomechanical Comparison of Glutaraldehyde-Crosslinked Gelatin Fibrinogen Electrospun Scaffolds to Porcine Coronary Arteries

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4031847

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [NHLBI-1R21HL111990-01A1, NIH/NCRRS10RR023737]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death for Americans. As coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) remains a mainstay of therapy for CVD and native vein grafts are limited by issues of supply and lifespan, an effective readily available tissue-engineered vascular graft (TEVG) for use in CABG would provide drastic improvements in patient care. Biomechanical mismatch between vascular grafts and native vasculature has been shown to be the major cause of graft failure, and therefore, there is need for compliance-matched biocompatible TEVGs for clinical implantation. The current study investigates the biaxial mechanical characterization of acellular electrospun glutaraldehyde (GLUT) vapor-crosslinked gelatin/fibrinogen cylindrical constructs, using a custom-made microbiaxial optomechanical device (MOD). Constructs crosslinked for 2, 8, and 24 hrs are compared to mechanically characterized porcine left anterior descending coronary (LADC) artery. The mechanical response data were used for constitutive modeling using a modified Fung strain energy equation. The results showed that constructs crosslinked for 2 and 8 hrs exhibited circumferential and axial tangential moduli (ATM) similar to that of the LADC. Furthermore, the 8-hrs experimental group was the only one to compliance-match the LADC, with compliance values of 0.0006 +/- 0.00018mm Hg-1 and 0.00071 +/- 0.00027mm Hg-1, respectively. The results of this study show the feasibility of meeting mechanical specifications expected of native arteries through manipulating GLUT vapor crosslinking time. The comprehensive mechanical characterization of cylindrical biopolymer constructs in this study is an important first step to successfully develop a biopolymer compliance-matched TEVG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据