In vitro stability of a novel compliant poly(carbonate‐urea)urethane to oxidative and hydrolytic stress

Abstract

Poly(ester)urethane and poly(ether)urethane vascular grafts fail in vivo because of hydrolytic and oxidative degradative mechanisms. Studies have shown that poly(carbonate)urethanes have enhanced resistance. There is still a need for a viable, nonrigid, small-diameter, synthetic vascular graft. In this study, we sought to confirm this by exposing a novel formulation of compliant poly(carbonate-urea)urethane (CPU) manufactured by an innovative process, resulting in a stress-free. Small-diameter prosthesis, and a conventional poly(ether)urethane Pulse-Tec graft known to readily undergo oxidation in a variety of degradative solutions, and we assessed them for the development of oxidative and hydrolytic degradation, changes in elastic properties, and chemical stability. To simulate the in vivo environment, we used buffered solutions of phospholipase A(2) and cholesterol esterase; solutions of H(2)O(2)/CoCl(2), t-butyl peroxide/CoCl(2) (t-but/CoCl(2)), and glutathione/t-butyl peroxide/CoCl(2) (Glut/t-but/CoCl(2)); and plasma fractions I-IV, which were derived from fresh human plasma centrifuged in poly(ethylene glycol). To act as a negative control, both graft types were incubated in distilled water. Samples of both graft types (100 mm with a 5.0-mm inner diameter) were incubated in these solutions at 37 degrees C for 70 days before environmental scanning electron microscopy, radial tensile strength and quality control, gel permeation chromatography, and in vitro compliance assessments were performed. Oxidative degradation was ascertained from significant changes in molecular weight with respect to a control on all Pulse-Tec grafts treated with t-but/CoCl(2), Glut/t-but/CoCl(2), and plasma fractions I-III. Pulse-Tec grafts exposed to the H(2)O(2)/CoCl(2) mixture had significantly greater compliance than controls incubated in distilled water (p < 0.001 at 50 mmHg). No changes in molecular weight with respect to the control were observed for the CPU samples; only those immersed in t-but/CoCl(2) and Glut/t-but/CoCl(2) showed an 11% increase in molecular weight to 108,000. Only CPU grafts treated with the Glut/t-but/CoCl(2) mixture exhibited significantly greater compliance (p < 0.05 at 50 mmHg). Overall, results from this study indicate that CPU presents a far greater chemical stability than poly(ether)-urethane grafts do.

Manufacturing and hydrodynamic assessment of a novel aortic valve made of a new nanocomposite polymer

“…2). POSS-PCU has been extensively tested and validated for its anti-thrombogenic (Kannan et al, 2006a) and calcification-resistant surface (Ghanbari et al, 2010), advanced degradative resistance (physiological, oxidative, and hydrolytic) (Kannan et al, 2006b;Salacinski et al, 2002a;Salacinski et al, 2002b), cytocompatibility (Kannan et al, 2006c), biocompatibility and biological stability (with significant reduction of inflammatory response) (Kannan et al, 2007). It has shown superior mechanical and viscoelastic properties compared to other PCU-based polymers .…”

Oxidative and hydrolytic stability of a novel acrylic terpolymer for biomedical applications

“…One unit of CE was defined as that which produces a change of the absorbance of 0.01 optical density (OD) per minute at 410 nm using para ‐nitrophenyl acetate ( p ‐NPA) as a substrate at pH = 7.0 and 25°C 12. This definition of activity was selected in order to allow comparisons to be made with degradation studies with other biomaterials that use similar units 13. The solution was sterile filtered with a 22‐μm filter.…”

3D bioprinting for tissue engineering: Stem cells in hydrogels

“…When selecting a bioprintable material which has a suitable degradation profile, it is necessary to also consider whether the cells will contract the scaffold in any way and change its dimensions or whether the material's swelling behaviour will be altered and the effect any by-products from degradation may have on surrounding tissue. A relatively inert and printable material or combination of materials that maintain the correct dimensions could still produce by-products that are toxic or not readily removed by the body [55] and therefore present new challenges in vivo.…”