doi: 10.1161/01.RES.0000185326.04010.9f
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.
Review |
Heart Valve Tissue Engineering
From The Saban Research Institute of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Correspondence to Ivan Vesely, PhD, The Saban Research Institute of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 4650 Sunset Blvd–MS137, Los Angeles, CA 90027. E-mail ivesely{at}chla.usc.edu
This Review is part of a thematic series on Cardiovascular Tissue Engineering, which includes the following articles:
Custom Design of the Cardiac Microenvironment With Biomaterials
Heart Valve Tissue Engineering
Engineering a Small-Diameter Artificial Artery
Engineering Myocardial Tissue
Regenerative Cardiomyocytes for Cardiovascular Tissue Engineering
Richard T. Lee Guest Editor
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Tissue-engineered heart valves have been proposed by physicians and scientists alike to be the ultimate solution for treating valvular heart disease. Rather than replacing a diseased or defective native valve with a mechanical or animal tissue–derived artificial valve, a tissue-engineered valve would be a living organ, able to respond to growth and physiological forces in the same way that the native aortic valve does. Two main approaches have been attempted over the past 10 to 15 years: regeneration and repopulation. Regeneration involves the implantation of a resorbable matrix that is expected to remodel in vivo and yield a functional valve composed of the cells and connective tissue proteins of the patient. Repopulation involves implanting a whole porcine aortic valve that has been previously cleaned of all pig cells, leaving an intact, mechanically sound connective tissue matrix. The cells of the patients are expected to repopulate and revitalize the acellular matrix, creating living tissue that already has the complex microstructure necessary for proper function and durability. Regrettably, neither of the 2 approaches has fared well in animal experiments, and the only clinical experience with tissue-engineered valves resulted in a number of early failures and patient death. This article reviews the technological details of the 2 main approaches, their rationale, their strengths and weaknesses, and the likely mechanisms for their failure. Alternative approaches to valvular tissue engineering, as well as the role of industry in shaping this field in the future, are also reviewed.
Key Words: cardiac valves • tissue engineering • review • acellular matrix • scaffold
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Every year, more than 100 000 US patients need to have their dysfunctional or diseased valves replaced with a prosthetic valve. Where there is a need, there is a technological solution. The heart valve industry is the US is vibrant and healthy, enjoying a growth in the market of 5% per year, selling roughly 300 000 valves worldwide.1 Worldwide sales were $910 million in 2002 and are most likely past the $1 billion mark in 2005. Faced with such tremendous market opportunities, many companies, clinicians, and scientists alike have taken serious interests in developing a new type of heart valve that can potentially revolutionize the industry and the practice of medicine. A tissue-engineered valve promises to be a living implant with a potential to grow and last a lifetime, like most native valves do. Rather than being a device that palliates a disease, it promises to be curative: a living replacement for a diseased component of our physiology.
As reviewed here, however, tissue engineering has promised much more than it has delivered. Indeed, heart valve tissue engineering has been hyped to such an extent that there is roughly 1 review article for every 4 true research reports published in this field. A simple PubMed search on "heart valve tissue engineering" reveals 164 citations since 1995, 32 of which are actually review articles.2– 33 This article, part of a series of reviews on tissue engineering in Circulation Research, intends to examine what has been accomplished and what is realistically possible in the coming years. Patients and physicians alike are beginning to ask "When can I get a tissue-engineered heart valve?" Indeed, even the American Heart Association Web site has an article entitled "Tissue-engineered valves give diseased hearts new life,"34 suggesting that clinical use of tissue-engineered valves is around the corner. The American Heart Association document fails to report the clinical outcomes of the cited experiment: that the technology has largely failed and that the claims of the surgeon have been discredited. This review thus aims to present a much more critical report on the real progress in this field, pointing out the specific mechanism by which tissue-engineered heart valves have failed in clinical and animal experiments.
As a discipline of its own, tissue engineering is surprisingly old. The term "tissue engineering" was coined by Fung in October 1987 at a National Science Foundation workshop in Washington, DC.35 The different approaches to tissue engineering appeared to originate independently as early as the 1960s, when advanced tissue culture technologies were used to propagate skins cells.36 In the mid-1970s, the work of Rheinwald and Green at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology set the stage for skin grafting with sheets of cultured, autologous keratinocytes.37 Tissue engineering has had a number of definitions, both simple and complex. One of the simplest is that found in The Biomedical Engineering Handbook38 (D. Williams, personal communication, 2005) and is stated as follows:
The application of scientific principles to the design, construction, modification, growth and maintenance of living tissue.
A more complex definition is given in a World Technology Panel Report39 funded jointly by the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other government agencies, in which tissue engineering was defined as:
The application of principles and methods of engineering and life sciences to obtain a fundamental understanding of structure-function relationships in novel and pathological mammalian tissues and the development of biological substitutes to restore, maintain or improve tissue function.
For the purposes of this review, tissue engineering relevant to heart valves is defined as the manipulation of biological molecules and cells for the purpose of creating new structures capable of metabolic activity.
A new type of heart valve thus fabricated must, therefore, contain material of biological origin in a configuration that did not emerge naturally. Heart valves containing trace amounts of biological material, such as pannus overgrown, are not considered tissue-engineered valves. Valves consisting of inert materials covered with a cellular coating, developed for the purpose of improving the performance of the valve, could be considered tissue-engineered devices. Before exploring the universe of tissue-engineered valves, it is best to first review the spectrum of existing prosthetic valves based on biological materials.
|
Bioprosthetic Valves |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
There are generally three types of bioprosthetic valves available commercially: (1) porcine xenograft valves, (2) bovine pericardial valves, and (3) allograft or homograft valves (Figure 1). The porcine xenograft valve consists of an intact pig aortic valve that is preserved in low-concentration glutaraldehyde solution.40 These valves are prepared by valve manufacturers in various configurations, such as with or without integrated sewing cuffs, to maximize either ease of implantation or effective orifice area. Occasionally, these valves are assembled from up to 3 separate segments of aorta and the associated cusp material in an effort to improve valve symmetry and hence perceived performance.41 The bovine pericardial valve is fabricated from up to 3 separate pieces of glutaraldehyde-treated calf pericardium, affixed to a supporting stent and sewing cuff, in a configuration very similar to that of the porcine xenograft. Both the porcine and bovine valve tissues are crosslinked in low concentrations of glutaraldehyde to reduce their antigenicity and to stabilize the tissue against the proteolytic degradation that would otherwise occur following implantation into the recipient. Both types of valve tissues are also treated with various other chemical agents to minimize their propensity to calcify over the duration of implantation and hence improve their longevity.42 The homograft valves are intact human valves obtained from organ and tissue donors, usually stored cryopreserved as entire aortic or pulmonary roots, and trimmed to size and shape before implantation in the recipient.43,44 These 3 types of valves are used primarily in the aortic and pulmonary positions and are occasionally inverted and used to replace the mitral valves. Mitral valve repair is used more frequently than mitral replacement during the first surgery to address a dysfunctional mitral valve. In addition to these 3 "device-related" approaches, there are also completely surgical approaches to reconstruct valves, making use of autologous or commercially available bovine pericardium to augment defective cusps or fabricate monocusp valves.45 These highly varied approaches are used primarily in children who do not tolerate prosthetic devices nearly as well as adults do. The Ross procedure, the surgical removal of the autologous pulmonary valve and its reimplantation in the aortic position, is a hybrid approach that makes use of surgical reconstruction of the aortic valve and a replacement of the missing pulmonary valve with a cadaveric homograft.46 Although these surgical approaches often place biological tissues in new configurations, they are not considered tissue engineering, as there is little manipulation to the internal molecular structure for the purpose of enhancing their biological performance.
|
|
Why the Need for a Tissue-Engineered Valve? |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Some may argue that there is not much of a need for tissue-engineered valves, because conventional valve technology is very mature with well-described performance criteria. Indeed, the original motivation for the continued development of prosthetic valve technologies appears to have lessened considerably with the improvements in surgical approaches and hence surgical outcomes. In the early days of bioprosthetic valve development, durability and hence longevity, was the main motivating factor. The reason why durability was the main object of research and development is that prosthetic valves are meant to be implanted once and should last the life of the patient. Historically, the main complication associated with the use of prosthetic valves has been operative mortality during prosthetic valve replacement surgery. Whereas the mortality during the first surgery—the surgery to replace the disease native valve—is often less than 1%, the second surgery is considerably more risky, with repeat operations having mortality as high as 20%, varying highly across institutions.47,48 With improvements in surgical technique and technologies, reoperative mortality has been reduced considerably during the past decade. Many surgeons now view surgical mortality during reoperation to be lower than the cumulative risk of thromboembolism associated with the use of mechanical valves (approximately 4% per patient-year49,50) and now opt for repeated use of bioprosthetic valves in their patients. Indeed, the durability of the Edwards pericardial valve, perceived by many to be the most durable bioprosthesis, is close to 20 years51,52 and almost equivalent to the aortic valve homograft which, because of its excellent longevity, is considered by many to be the gold standard.43
Because of the relatively good performance of current generation prosthetic valves, and the excellent quality of life they provide, both surgeons and valve manufacturers have become quite conservative. Surgeons are often reluctant to switch from a proven valve to a new device, and manufacturers are wary of introducing a new product that will have clinical performance that is worse than its current product. A number of clinical failures of new products have all but stifled innovation in conventional heart valve technologies. The failure of the Carbomedics Photofix-
valve (cusp abrasion and perforation),53 the Medtronic Parallel mechanical valve (thromboembolism),54 and the St Jude Silzone coating (tissue necrosis and perivalvular leak)55,56 have made the valve industry highly aware of the possibility that innovation can breed disaster. Most recently, Edwards Lifesciences suspended the clinical trial of its catheter-deployable valve57 because of problems with delivery and anchoring of the valve in the aorta of the patient.58
In the world of conventional valve technologies, the bar for the adaptation of a new valve is very high. Current bioprosthetic valves have a lifespan of 15 to 20 years,59 highly predictable failure patterns60 that can be managed, and negligible early complications. A tissue-engineered valve will, therefore, need to compete in this arena, where change is slow and methodical, often taking a generation to establish. Indeed, the Edwards valve has increased its market share steadily over the past 20 years, primarily because of clinical reports on its very good long-term performance.51
There may not be any immediate need for a tissue-engineered valve in the adult patient. Given the good service life that conventional valves offer, experimental use of new tissue-engineered valve concepts is questionable. The more realistic option for the use of tissue-engineered valves in the near future is in the pediatric population. The performance of the many surgical corrections for valvular defects is highly variable and depends on the age of the child.61 Allograft valves are difficult to obtain for children because they require the death of other children of similar size. Surgical reconstruction and monocusp valves tend to fibrose and contract early.62 In the child, there is a need for new materials and new approaches and thus an opportunity for tissue-engineered valves. Unfortunately, the market size for pediatric products is very small, less than 10% of the adult valve market, and thus not commercially viable. Accordingly, established heart valve manufacturers expend relatively few resources developing tissue-engineered valve technologies (neither Medtronic nor Edwards Lifesciences has a significant research program in heart valve tissue engineering; Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences, personal communications, 2005). Clinical use of tissue-engineered valves will thus most likely happen first in pediatric hospitals on an ad hoc basis and will augment the portfolio of surgical options currently available to treat these very challenging patients.
|
Three Approaches to Valvular Tissue Engineering |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Perhaps the first examples of heart valve tissue engineering were the experiments with seeding cells on otherwise inert substrates. This approach has been relatively successful in vascular grafts64 but not at all for cardiac valves. Compliant synthetic materials have failed as valve leaflet substitutes, not because of thromboembolism but because of material fatigue, often related to microcracks, plasma protein insudation, and subsequent mineralization.65 Because of these fundamental material issues, glutaraldehyde-preserved biological matrixes have dominated the valve field. Because of the residual toxicity of glutaraldehyde, glutaraldehyde-treated valve tissues have remain cell free. For reasons not completely clear, they do not induce thromboembolism and remain an essentially passivated structured in the blood stream, which does not elicit any adverse reaction.
Perhaps the first example of heart valve tissue engineering came out of the University of Vienna in 1991, when Grimm et al presented their success in inducing endothelium to grow on glutaraldehyde-fixed bovine pericardium.66 Sustaining cells on the otherwise toxic pericardial tissue was made possible by inactivation of the aldehyde by crosslinking with L-glutamic acid before cell seeding. For unknown reasons, this technology was never implemented clinically and the last article on this topic was published in 1993.67
The approaches that have been sustained by investigators around the world can be grouped into the following two areas: (1) decellularization of xenogenic tissues followed by cell seeding or direct implantation and (2) use of bioresorbable synthetic scaffolds. A third, less popular approach, involves fabrication of cell matrix constructs by way of polymerization and cell entrapment.
Acellular Matrix Xenograft
This is perhaps the oldest approach to mainstream valvular tissue engineering, the first reports being patents by Brendel and Duhamel of the University of Arizona, Tucson, filed in 1984,68 and by Klement et al69 from Toronto, filed in 1987. Both of these approaches claimed the much larger field of acellular matrix use for applications ranging from valves to vascular grafts to bone, teeth, ligament, and skin. Decellularization of heart valves has since been attempted all over the world. In the US and Canada, this approach was attempted by Vesely and Noseworthy70 and Wilson and colleagues71 very early on in this field and more recently by the thorough investigation of Hilbert et al.72 In Europe, this approach has been used more widely by Dohmen et al of Berlin, Germany,73,74 Steinhoff and colleagues of Rostok, Germany,75 Stock and colleagues of Jena, Germany,76 Haverich and colleagues from Hanover, Germany,77 Weigel et al from Vienna, Austria,78 Gittenberger-de Groot and colleagues from Leiden, The Netherlands,79 Fisher and colleagues of Leeds, UK,80 and Spina, Gerosa, and colleagues from Padua, Italy.81 In Asia, the approach has been adopted by Hong and colleagues82 and Ye et al83 from Shanghai, China, and by Wu et al from Beijing, China.84
The rationale for this approach is the assumption that the antigenicity of xenogenic tissues originates in the cellular debris. Recall that porcine aortic valves need to be crosslinked with glutaraldehyde before implantation and that human allograft valves do not. Clearly, the immunohistocompatability mismatch between humans and pigs is far more severe than it is between unmatched human subjects. Pig cells express the gal-1,3 epitope, whereas humans do not.85 Indeed, human allograft valves are almost never matched to recipients, even though matching has been shown to have better long-term graft survival.86 Lack of matching is apparently not too detrimental because homograft valves can last 15 to 20 years. It has been theorized that perhaps the valve is in a privileged location, in a high flow environment where monocytes and other immune system cells cannot readily attach. With all of these issues in mind, suggesting that cell-extracted porcine valves can exist in human patients, without any appreciable antigenic response, may sound quite reasonable. This approach also assumes that these acellular matrixes will become repopulated with recipient cells, either before or immediately after implantation in the patient. A fully repopulated matrix would thus become "invisible" to the host immune system, because it would be enveloped in an endothelial cell layer recognized as "self," and possibly remodeled by the invading cells, ultimately becoming self as the host cells lay down a new matrix in place of the degraded porcine matrix. This approach has been developed to the greatest extent by Goldstein et al87 of CryoLife Inc, a company well known for its homograft valve cryopreservation business. CryoLife eventually brought the technology to clinical use in Europe,88 unfortunately with disastrous results that are reviewed later in this article.
The typical approach to generating an acellular matrix tissue is to first break apart the cell membranes through lysis in hyper- and hypotonic solutions, followed by extraction with various detergents. The detergents used by most investigators include the anionic Sodium dodecyl sulfate, the zwitterionic CHAPS and CHAPSO, and the nonionic BigCHAP, Triton X-100, and Tween family of agents. The enzymes that have accompanied these detergent treatments have focused mainly on cleaving and removing the DNA that is part of the cellular debris. Because these enzymes can potentially degrade the useful matrix, enzyme inhibitors, such as trypsin inhibitor, can be used, although some have used trypsin-EDTA alone to decellularize the matrix.89 It is important to note that the agents used for cell extraction can be quite detrimental to the matrix: they can degrade or denature the matrix proteins or leave toxic residues or residual charge, any of which can detrimentally affect mechanical function or cellular response. The parameters that the many investigators in this field have varied involve mainly the sequence of steps, the specific detergents to use, and the time duration of the various soaking periods. For example, the laboratory of Fisher in Leeds, UK,80,90 uses a series of baths in PBS and hypotonic buffer, along with trypsin and nucleases, to decellularize the tissue. The entire extraction procedure can last up to a week. Mechanical testing is used most of the time to determine the mechanical integrity of the processed tissues. Parameters such as burst pressure or failure strength of test trips is compared with unprocessed controls.80,91 In most cases, mechanical properties remain well preserved after cell extraction. Histological morphology, however, varies greatly from process to process, often showing a highly porous, locally collapsed microstructure, suggesting that there are features of the matrix that are not readily measurable using conventional techniques. The patents that describe the creation of these acellular matrixes are perhaps the largest collection in this field and number in the dozens, if not hundreds.
To seed or not to seed cells before implantation has become 1 of the important variables to consider in this approach. Perhaps the most disconcerting issues in this approach are reports that homograft valves not only fail to repopulate with recipient cells but actually become completely acellular within months of implantation.92 This is of particular concern as the human aortic valve is expected to be the ideal matrix for repopulation: it has the right mechanical properties and is far less antigenic than porcine matrixes. Possibly in view of these pathological findings, or possibly for other reasons, a number of investigators have attempted to repopulate these scaffolds in vitro, in advance of implantation into animal models.93 The CryoLife technology,87 however, was implanted into patients without any prior cell seeding in vitro. Indeed, technologies attractive to the valve industry are those that do not involve handling of patient cells. It is far easier to get a new valve approved by the FDA as a device, if there is no reliance on cells contributing to its long-term durability.
Bioresorbable Scaffold
This approach to valvular tissue engineering is perhaps the most conventional. The bioresorbable scaffold has been used in applications as varied as skin, bone, vessels, spinal chord, tendon, bladder, vagina, muscle, and solid organs like liver and pancreas. The concept is simple: cells of a particular phenotype are seeded on a porous material, implanted in the body, and are expected to generate the organ of interest as the scaffold degenerates. The scientific rationale for this approach is unclear and based primarily on empirical evidence that it appears to work in certain applications. Perhaps the oldest most successful application of this approach is tissue-engineered skin, dating back to the late 1970s.94 This approach launched the tissue-engineering industry and remains the most, if not the only, successful product.36
The original scaffolds for heart valves were borrowed from skin: polylactic and polyglycolic acid and copolymers thereof.95 These materials have been largely abandoned for heart valve applications because they were too stiff, and newer, more compliant materials like polyhydroxyalkanoate, have been used.96 Natural scaffolds, like small intestine submucosa have also been used for valvular matrixes.97 In most cases, the valve candidates have been implanted in the pulmonary, rather than the aortic position, because the degrading scaffold cannot bear left ventricular pressures before new tissues being regenerated. Besides the option of scaffold material and shape of the leaflets, the other variable is the decision of whether to preseed in vitro or not and, specifically, how to do it.93 As discussed above for the acellular matrix valve, preseeding in vitro appears to yield better in vivo results.
Collagen-Based Constructs Containing Entrapped Cells
This is perhaps the least explored area and the one that involves the greatest amount of engineering. This approach is based on the relatively old observations that cells entrapped in collagen gels contract and compact the gels, increasing the density of the collagen many fold.98–100
The principle involves first mixing soluble, fibrillar collagen with the appropriate cells. After the collagen–cell mixture is neutralized, soluble collagen reassembles into fibrils and a gel is created. Cells become entrapped within the collagen gel and begin to interact with the collagen fibrils and contract the matrix, excluding water.98,99,101 In many ways, this in vitro contraction mimics wound healing in vivo.102,103 When the gel is mechanically constrained, the collagen fibrils align in the direction of constraint,104 and a highly aligned, compacted collagenous construct can thus be fabricated.
One of the early applications of this technology has been as blood vessels,105 where the fabrication of collagen tubes is relatively straightforward. All that is required is a rod affixed centrally within the lumen of a tube, creating an annular space that is filled with the collagen–cell mixture. Once the mixture gels, it begins to contract around the central rod and peels off the inner surface of the tube. At that point, the rod with its adherent gel coating can be removed from the tube. Because the gel coating on the rod cannot shrink in circumference, it compacts only through its thickness and along the length of the rod. Collagen fibrils thus align circumferentially, much like in the adventitia of a blood vessel.
A very logical extension of this approach to heart valves is to fabricate a mold for leaflets, contiguous with the aortic annulus. This is what has been done by the laboratory of Tranquillo et al.106 Tranquillo developed an interesting mold with inner and outer parts that produced the shape of a bileaflet valve within a tube (Figure 2). Like the vessel wall, the valve leaflets also shrank along the direction of the tube, becoming shorter and developing an aligned fiber structure.107
|
The work in the laboratory of this author is a simplification of the original work of Tranquillo. Rather than forming complex 3D structures, we have focused on generating simple, 1D strings that could be used for surgical reconstruction of mitral valve chordae or for future use in more complex constructs. We began by selecting neonatal rat aortic smooth muscle cells as the experimental cell line, because they are well known for producing considerable amounts of matrix, particularly elastin.108 We found empirically, however, that cells with highly varied phenotype can be extracted from the minced aortic tissues. Digesting these tissues with trypsin apparently liberates a mixture of cells, many of which are not highly contractile and thus unsuitable for use with directed collagen gel shrinkage. The best outcomes were obtained with cells isolated by the outgrowth method, in which tissue is minced into small pieces and plated onto to dishes. The most highly motile cells apparently grow out from these tissue fragments and can be amplified over several weeks of culture. Optimal shrinkage of the constructs occurred when these cells were added to the collagen suspension at a cell-seeding concentration of 106 cells/mL.109 The collagen suspension consists of sterile acid-soluble type I collagen at an initial concentration of 2.0 mg/mL. For our application, the cell/collagen suspension is pipetted into rectangular wells of variable geometries with microporous holders at their ends. Like the inner mandrel of the tubular constructs, the anchors at the ends of the wells prevent longitudinal contraction and allow shrinkage to occur only transversely to the long axis of the wells. This gives rise to well-aligned collagen constructs with relatively high collagen fibril density (Figure 3).
|
After 8 weeks of culture, the collagen constructs have the typical nonlinear stress/strain curve of tendinous materials, an extensibility of 14%, a stiffness of 5 MPa, and failure strength of 1.1 MPa. Although the stiffness and strength are still about an order of magnitude lower than what is required, our constructs are already 10 to 100 times stronger than similar collagen-based materials fabricated previously.110,111 Ultrastructural analyses have shown that the main reason for the good strength of our constructs is the very high collagen fibril density. Because the constructs are relatively simple 1D collagen bundles, they compact from 2 directions, producing an area shrinkage ratio that is greater than 99%.
In an effort to improve the strength of these constructs further, we have explored different sizes and aspect ratios, different materials for the anchors for these constructs, and different forms of application of external tension. For example, triangular-shaped holders that appear to channel the tension from the holder material to the construct lead to stronger constructs, as does the application of external forces. Dynamic loading, in particular, increases construct strength by a factor of 3. Although these constructs are clearly not ready for human use, they are nearing use in animal models. One point of concern is the use of rat collagen and rat cells, and efforts are underway to translate this technology from the rat to the sheep model, making use of sheep collagen and sheep cells. The core technology, however, is also being used in a more ambitious approach to develop a composite aortic valve cusp. This is discussed below.
Other Substrates in Early Development
The main problems with using reconstituted collagen as a substrate for tissue engineering is the observation that cells entrapped in collagen gels rapidly enter apoptosis112 and synthesize matrix metalloproteinases. Whereas strategies for overcoming these phenomena have been attempted (ie, mechanical loading), use of collagen alone has thus not been widely embraced. A number of investigators are exploring cell adhesion and phenotype on thin flat films of candidate materials, as a prelude to using the bulk material as a scaffold. For example, Giachelli and colleagues have explored the use of chitosan, an interesting material derived from crustacean shells and used for wound dressings, and found that mixtures of chitosan and collagen work better than either alone.113 Anseth and colleagues have used crosslinked polyvinylalcohol114 and hyaluronan as a substrate for valve tissue engineering.115,116 Rothenburger and colleagues from Muenster, Germany, have used collagen films as scaffolds for tissue engineering117,118 and found that myofibroblasts and endothelium cocultured produced significant amounts of collagen and structural proteoglycans. Fibrin is being considered an alternative to collagen in valvular tissue engineering by a number of groups,119 including that of Tranquillo.
|
History of Each Approach: Successes and Failures |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Acellular Matrix Valve
Judging from the volume of literature, the acellular matrix valve has received the most interest. This is not surprising, because it seems to make the most sense from a biomechanical point of view. The aortic valve is only that: a mechanical structure designed to open and close with minimal pressure drop and reverse leakage.120 What is unique to the aortic valve, compared with most other connective tissues, is that it does not require any metabolic activity or self-repair to provide a good service life. Recall that human aortic valve allografts (homografts) are transplanted without any tissue-type matching and consequently become acellular within a few months.92 The homograft can last 20 years, essentially as a dead piece of tissue, free from any mechanical reinforcement by crosslinking agents. Indeed, it is remarkable that the homograft valves last longer than the glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine xenografts; there must be something about the microstructure and composition of the native aortic valve that makes it very resistant to mechanical fatigue. Indeed, many have studied the structural basis for this remarkable durability of the aortic valve.120–143 Although it still remains unknown exactly what features of the native valve tissue give it such remarkable durability, the importance of its internal complexity is being appreciated more and more. Most likely, the presence of interconnected sheets of collagen, layers and tubes of elastin, highly nonlinear mechanics, anisotropy, and viscoelasticity endow the valve tissue with is unique longevity. Not knowing exactly which features are important, the logical approach is to duplicate all of them in a prosthetic device. Indeed, the use of intact porcine aortic valves has spawned the whole bioprosthetic valve industry. Early in its history, engineering analyses clearly demonstrated that the porcine xenograft, with its inherent structural complexity, is theoretically better than the pericardial valve144 and should thus last much longer. Interestingly, this conventional wisdom ultimately proved to be quite wrong: a particularly good design of the pericardial valve (the Carpentier-Edwards valve) is remarkably long lived51,52 and appears to be more durable than glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine valves.
Now it could be argued, of course, that a glutaraldehyde-fixed aortic valve, mounted on a stent, is hobbled somehow and its theoretical advantage over the pericardial valve disappears. That could very well be the case, because some studies have shown certain disadvantages of glutaraldehyde-fixed aortic valve cusps relative to similarly prepared bovine pericardium.145 The intact aortic valve may thus still have the upper hand when finally revitalized with freshly seeded cells. Regrettably, there have been few, if any successes, with this approach. Rather than happily repopulating the waiting matrix, the cells that come into contact with acellular valves have reacted badly and destroyed the intricate microstructure and its associated perfect mechanics. The reality of this, unfortunately, has come to light only recently. For almost 20 years, research groups around the world have independently tried various chemical processing approaches and published the successes in short-term animal models, but none led to any real clinical success.
The first reports that these protocols ultimately fail in long-term animal studies were only anecdotal at first, shared among scientists during personal discussion at the various heart valve conferences. No negative results were actually published until Hilbert, a well-recognized valve scientist working at the laboratories of the NIH, did the "ultimate" comparative study of various extraction protocols in a long-term sheep implantation study.146 Hilbert copied the protocols of a number of investigators and implanted 2 sets of differently processed valves into the sheep model, as pulmonary artery interposition grafts. After 20 weeks of implantation, the valves were explanted and examined grossly and histopathologically. With some variation between treatment protocols, all valves underwent considerable tissue overgrowth and infiltration with inflammatory cells. There was also some evidence of aneurismal dilatation. The second such report came from the laboratory of Stock,147 who reported similar complications with his valves, even though these valves were seeded with cells before implantation and were thus more "ready" for implantation than the valves prepared by Hilbert.
It could be argued, however, that the sheep model was destined for failure and that the acellular xenograft approach would work in the human condition. The reason for this argument is that it has become clear over the past decade that the sheep model generates an exuberant fibrotic response to valve implants. Valves that are implanted in sheep overgrow rapidly with fibrotic tissue, certainly much more than they do in humans.53 Indeed, a painful lesson learned in this area was experienced by Sulzer Carbomedics, whose Photofix- pericardial valve developed severe abrasions to the leaflets against the sewing cuff during its clinical trials in the mid-1990s. The reason for the leaflet abrasion was attributable to a very specific design flaw, which was not anticipated.53 Indeed, this flaw did not manifest in the preclinical sheep studies because the sheep rapidly covered the sewing cuff with pannus and thus protected the delicate valve leaflets from the more abrasive sewing cuff material. It could be thus argued that testing acellular matrix valves in the sheep model is a waste of time and destined to fail, because of this severe fibrotic response.
Perhaps this was the motivation behind the use of the CryoLife Synergraft in patients directly, without any reported long-term animal studies, something quite unusual for the heart valve field. The CryoLife approach was similar to the others: the removal of cellular antigens through dissolution and extraction.87 Unlike the somewhat harsh chemistry of the original Brendel and Duhamer approach,68 and most of those who tried to improve on it, CryoLife favored a more gentle approach that has not been revealed publicly but most likely involves multiple freeze-thaw cycles, cell lysis through variation in osmotic pressure, use of enzymes such as DNase, and prolonged extraction in aqueous solutions. The CryoLife product was thus expected to be the least affected and the most mechanically sound acellular matrix. In October of 2000, CryoLife Inc obtained CE Mark approval to sell the Synergraft product in Europe88 to a limited group of patients who had few alternatives: the neonate with congenital valvular malformations.
Although the numbers are not widely reported, a number of patients in Vienna, Austria, received these valves. Within a few weeks to months, many of these children began to experience serious valvular complications.148 Although some remained apparently unaffected, many valves became highly regurgitant, and some children died. CryoLife rapidly withdrew the product from the market and disclosed the negative clinical outcomes at the 2004 Florence Heart Valve meeting. In their 2003 article, Simon et al148 reported that 1 patient (aged 7 years) died 7 days after implantation of the valve, 1 patient (aged 9 years) died 6 weeks after surgery, and 1 patient (age 2.5 years) died 1 year after surgery. Death resulted from various cardiac complications related to inflammation, valve rupture, and stenosis. One patient was reoperated on 2 days after the primary surgery, in view of what happened to the others. All valves showed severe inflammation, both inside and out, fibrosis, encapsulation, perforation, and deterioration of the leaflet tissues. Grossly, this reaction was not markedly different from that shown by Stock and colleagues147 in the sheep model. The sheep model was thus not to blame; it was the matrix itself after all. Apparently, there is some abnormal signaling generated by the acellular matrix that induces the invading cells to remodel, fibrose, and contract what otherwise appears to be a perfect, mechanically sound valve matrix. The exact reasons for this remain unclear.
Although its first clinical use was disastrous, proponents of this approach remain undeterred. Apparently, another variant of this approach is doing well in Berlin, Germany, and is being implanted by Dohmen, Konertz, and colleagues73,74 with 50 implants in patients for more than 2 years. In this series, 1 patient died postoperatively, 2 required reoperation for valve-related complications, and the rest of the patients appear to be doing fine. The published short-term results in adults (17 to 70 years; mean, 46 years) therefore appear to be good, and the surgeons are satisfied with this technology. Personal reports obtained at the Society for Heart Valve Disease Meeting in Vancouver in June of this year, however, indicate that a number of their patients have indeed died from valve-related complications. In their article,73 the authors also disclose that Konertz and Dohmen are shareholders of AutoTissue GmbH, the company that produces these valves.
Resorbable Scaffold
The failure of this approach is much less dramatic, as apparently none of these scaffolds have been tried in patients. Interestingly, the main and still dominant reason for favoring the bioresorbable polylactic/polyglycolic acid (PLA/PGA) scaffold approach is the FDA approval of the materials for implantation in the US, as bioresorbable sutures. Although this may be true, it most likely does not lessen the regulatory burden of a device constructed from these materials. Valves are life-sustaining class III devices and must be taken through the full set of preclinical and clinical trials before market approval. Perhaps it is thought that as limited-use surgical materials, valves fabricated from these matrixes could be used in limited volumes by surgeons directly, as part of an investigative study in their hospital. Perhaps the attractiveness of this approach is the legacy of Robert Langer who pioneered the resorbable matrix approach in the artificial skin product and launched the tissue engineering industry. Perhaps the entire approach is flawed. Jeff Hubbel, a noted chemical engineer with expertise in developing materials with controlled release chemistry noted recently at a conference that biological matrixes do not degrade through hydrolysis, but rather through proteolysis. Accordingly, he has been engineering his matrixes to be cleaved by enzymes.149 Hydrolysable matrixes therefore are clearly not biomimetic and their use as biodegradable substrates should thus give rise for concern. Matrixes cleavable by proteolytic enzymes, however, are also far from clinical reality and may indeed experience the same fate as the others.
The fate and the failure mechanism of the bioresorbable matrix approach to heart valves, unfortunately, is less clear than it is for the acellular xenograft. Like for the acellular matrix valves, there have been no clear reports of "failed experiments." Personal communications with the principal investigators, however, confirm that fibrosis, retraction, and incompetence have hampered the progress of valves based on resorbable matrixes. No good histological pictures of failed valves appear in the literature, and thus little can be learned from the 10 years of experience with this approach. Each group working in this field appears to publish promising short-term results with a particular matrix material and yet abandons it in favor of a more promising one with no report of how the old material fared. What remains unclear to most of the scientific community is specifically how the previous approach failed. Although PLA/PGA95 was abandoned by the pioneers in this field—the group of Vacanti and Mayer of Harvard/Children’s Hospital—in favor of a polyhydroxyalkanoate, a better, more compliant material,96 other groups around the world continue to work with PLA,150 most likely because it is the only FDA-approved, clinically popular material. As the various research groups working in this field continue to use resorbable materials, the questions that remain can be unpleasant: Are PLA/PGA and their variants inappropriate materials, or have they simply been used improperly by the first groups? Are the other groups going to see the same results and waste a lot of time? What is the responsibility of the research community in helping others avoid approaches that failed and perhaps choose a better path? In an environment where the prize is a piece of a $1 billion annual market, competition for attention and credibility is clearly felt at scientific meetings. Reporting about failures, rather than successes, also does not make for exciting reading and negative results seldom get published in mainstream journals. The ability for scientists to learn from the mistakes of the past is therefore quite limited.
|
Hybrid Approaches |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
A possible alternative to the acellular valve and the bioresorbable matrix approaches is the fabrication of complex structures by manipulating biological molecules. With sufficient fidelity, one could potentially fabricate structures as complex as the aortic valve cusps. This approach is a derivative of that pioneered by Tranquillo,100 except that the directed collagen shrinkage method is simplified to a process that forms essentially 1D strings of collagen. These collagen fiber bundles can then be used as building blocks for the development of a composite aortic valve cusp.151 Whereas collagen structures in heart valves can be found in the form of sheets,152 most of the load-bearing components of the valve cusp are relatively thick, dense collagen fiber bundles. Having developed this technology already109,153 the next step was to develop the other components required to make this approach work.
The aortic valve consists of the three basic building blocks of all connective tissues: collagen fibers, elastin sheets, and glycosaminoglycan matrix schematically arranged as shown in Figure 4. The collagen exists to bear tensile load and provide some ultimate stiffness and strength to the valve, so that it can withstand diastolic loads.125 The elastin matrix exists to return the collagen structures back to their resting states between loading cycles,124,126 and the glycosaminoglycans likely maintain hydration and the intrinsic viscoelasticity of the tissue.123,142,154 For the latter component, hyaluronan was chosen as the working material.
|
Hyaluronan is a glycosaminoglycan polymer with a repeating disaccharide structure (glucuronic acid–b1,3-N-acetylgalactosamine-b1,4-)n, where n can reach 25 000 or more. In solution, hyaluronan forms large, random coil structures that occupy large solvent volumes. When constrained within a matrix, like a collagen network, hyaluronan exerts a swelling pressure that traps water, gives tissues compressive resistance, and imparts viscoelastic properties. Hyaluronan also plays a role during embryonic cardiac development as invading cells transform "cardiac jelly" into specialized cardiac structures, like the myocardium and the cardiac valves.155 Hyaluronan is exceptionally biocompatible.156–158 Unlike collagen that has both tissue- and species-specific markers, hyaluronan exhibits structural homology across species. For example, hyaluronan made by bacteria is the same as hyaluronan made by humans. Because of its interesting viscoelastic properties and its broad biocompatibility, hyaluronan has been used in a number of clinical applications and also as a scaffold for heart valve tissue engineering115 by others.
The formulation of hyaluronan gels used in our laboratory is based on a modification of a previously patented protocol.159 Details of the preparation are published elsewhere,160,161 but in brief, the process involves mixing commercially available sodium salt of long chain hyaluronan with 1 mol/L NaOH at low temperatures and crosslinking with divinyl-sulfone. These gels can have a stiffness as high as 30 kPa, similar to that of the elastin structures of the aortic valve cusps, and thus can form highly hydrated, elastic sheets. It is expected that appropriately cast sheets of crosslinked hyaluronan can find use in the central spongiosa layer of the aortic valve cusp.
Two spurious findings occurred when working with the collagen constructs and the crosslinked hyaluronan; both stimulated the formation of elastin sheets. Elastin sheets formed spontaneously around the periphery of the collagen constructs153 and on hyaluronan substrates texturized through dehydration and texturization with ultraviolet light162 (Figure 5). Whereas the growth of elastin sheets on the collagen constructs is straightforward, growth of elastin sheets atop the hyaluronan gels has been difficult to reproduce. The success of this technique appears to be highly dependant on the specific cell type, gel formulation, and degree of surface texturization by UV light irradiation. Standardization of these protocols is an ongoing process in our laboratory, and no animal implants have yet been done.
|
|
Stem Cells and Other Future Prospects |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The cell is clearly an important component of the tissue-engineered heart valve. A very good review of the types of cells used in tissue-engineered valves is provided by Flanagan and Pandit.9 Much of the work identifying the phenotype of interstitial cells in the aortic valve has been done outside the US, in the laboratories of Yacoub,163,164 Gerosa,165 and Boughner.166 Which cell to use for seeding scaffolds remains unclear. Stem cells and various other progenitor cells are being increasingly used in tissue-engineered valve applications. The 2 main cell types are mesenchymal stem cells and circulating endothelial progenitor cells. These cells are harvested from either experimental animals or patients, expanded in culture, and then seeded on the various valve leaflets substrates, be they the acellular matrix valves or the resorbable scaffolds. From presentations at recent conferences, all of these studies are very preliminary, showing no real differences in histological morphology over conventional interstitial cells used in previous studies.
Many investigators believe that cells are "smart," somehow recognizing the substrate and behaving in the appropriate way. The fibrotic overgrowth and failure of valvular matrixes described above clearly points to the contrary. With the emergence of stem cell science, many investigators believe that stem cells are going to be the "silver bullet" and are going to be smarter and act appropriately on the substrates. Embryonic stem cells, when injected into infracted hearts, have not behaved "smartly," did not rebuild the damaged myocardium, and, instead, created calcific deposits or teratomas.167 There is no evidence that undifferentiated stem cells will behave in a more intelligent way on valvular substrates. Most likely, considerable effort will need to be expended to differentiate embryonic stem cells along a valvular lineage in advance of seeding on valvular substrates, before the promise of stem cells can be realized in this field.
Stem cell, however, are clearly the wave of the future. Considerable evidence exists in the literature that matrixes implanted without cells resorb, fibrose, and fail to produce any clinical benefit, whereas matrixes seeded with relevant cells incorporate and offer therapeutic benefit. The work of Atala in the field of urology is perhaps the best example of cell-seeded matrixes providing real clinical benefit to patients in augmenting large soft tissue defects.168 Stem cells, once differentiated to the proper end point, are expected to provide a broader source of autologous cell lines, along with the appropriate matrixes, for therapeutic use in the cardiovascular field.
The use of autologous cells, cell expansion, preimplantation culture, and other cell "management," however, is not the preferred approach in the medical device and therapeutics industry. Because of regulatory and cost issues, a tissue-engineered valve that does not require any cell management is the preferred choice for medical device companies. This is the reason for which CryoLife and originally St Jude and Advanced Tissue Sciences and currently Medtronic have pursued the acellular matrix approach; it can be qualified, manufactured, and sold as a device, a far simpler approach than the biological or combination product that most other tissue engineering therapies are likely to follow. The fact that the CryoLife approach failed, however, has not deterred others from trying it. The literature clearly shows that the majority of research projects prefer the acellular matrix approach, particularly now with the greater promise of stem cells.
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Perhaps the most often asked question by outsiders is, "When will tissue-engineered valves be ready for clinical use?" Given that heart valve tissue engineering is a field already almost 20 years old, and the only real clinical experience (the use of the Synergraft technology in children) has been disastrous, it may take another 20 years before the many complex challenges are finally solved. Although occasional experimental use of tissue-engineered valves in children will likely occur sooner, because children with congenital outflow tract abnormalities have few options, it will take 20 years to demonstrate that the long-term performance of tissue-engineered valves is comparable or better than conventional glutaraldehyde-treated porcine xenografts or pericardial valves. Children and adult patients with no option for conventional treatment will thus continue to serve as the proving ground for tissue-engineered solutions for cardiovascular defects for the foreseeable future, hopefully with less tragic consequences.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The author is The H. Russell Smith Foundation Endowed Chair of Cardiothoracic Research, Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, at The Saban Research Institute of the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and is grateful to the Saban Family, the Smith Family, and Dr Vaughn Starnes, the Chair of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, for creating an environment in which outstanding research can be performed. The author thanks colleagues in the heart valve industry for candid thoughts on the history and the future of heart valve tissue engineering. Without their help, this article would be far less interesting and controversial.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
The author has in the past, and is now, providing expert opinion on heart valve litigation, including tissue-engineered valves.
Original received June 29, 2005; resubmission received July 8, 2005; revised resubmission received August 22, 2005; accepted August 29, 2005.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBioprosthetic ValvesWhy the Need for...Three Approaches to Valvular...History of Each Approach:...Hybrid ApproachesStem Cells and Other...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
1. Medtronic Inc. News Release: Medtronic Receives CE Mark, Releases New Mechanical Heart Valve to European Surgeons. Minneapolis, Minn: Medtronic Inc; 2000. Available at: http://wwwp.medtronic.com/Newsroom/NewsReleaseDetails.do?itemId=1096566769805
=en_US.2. Barron V, Lyons E, Stenson-Cox C, McHugh PE, Pandit A. Bioreactors for cardiovascular cell and tissue growth: a review. Ann Biomed Eng. 2003; 31: 1017–1030.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Breuer CK, Mettler BA, Anthony T, Sales VL, Schoen FJ, Mayer JE. Application of tissue-engineering principles toward the development of a semilunar heart valve substitute. Tissue Eng. 2004; 10: 1725–1736.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Breuer C, Anthony T, Fong P. Potential tissue-engineering applications for neonatal surgery. Semin Perinatol. 2004; 28: 164–173.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Elkins RC. Tissue-engineered valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 74: 1434.
6. Elkins RC. Is tissue-engineered heart valve replacement clinically applicable? Curr Cardiol Rep. 2003; 5: 125–128.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Fath R. ["Tissue engineering": cultivated heart valves are still a future vision]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2003; 128: 912.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Flameng W. A new approach to heart valve tissue engineering. Int J Cardiol. 2004; 95 (suppl 1): S55–S56.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Flanagan TC, Pandit A. Living artificial heart valve alternatives: a review. Eur Cell Mater. 2003; 6: 28–45;discussion 45.
10. Haverich A. Tissue engineering. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004; 26 (suppl 1): S59–S60;discussion S60–S61.[CrossRef]
11. Hopkins RA. Tissue engineering of heart valves: decellularized valve scaffolds. Circulation. 2005; 111: 2712–2714.
12. Jankowski RJ, Wagner WR. Directions in cardiovascular tissue engineering. Clin Plast Surg. 1999; 26: 605–616.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Korossis SA, Fisher J, Ingham E. Cardiac valve replacement: a bioengineering approach. Biomed Mater Eng. 2000; 10: 83–124.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Mayer JE Jr, Shin’oka T, Shum-Tim D. Tissue engineering of cardiovascular structures. Curr Opin Cardiol. 1997; 12: 528–532.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Mitka M. Tissue engineering approaches utility. JAMA. 2000; 284: 2582–2583.
16. Mol A, Bouten CV, Baaijens FP, Zund G, Turina MI, Hoerstrup SP. Review article: tissue engineering of semilunar heart valves: current status and future developments. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004; 13: 272–280.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Mol A, Hoerstrup SP. Heart valve tissue engineering–where do we stand? Int J Cardiol. 2004; 95 (suppl 1): S57–S58.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Morsi YS, Birchall IE, Rosenfeldt FL. Artificial aortic valves: an overview. Int J Artif Organs. 2004; 27: 445–451.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Neuenschwander S, Hoerstrup SP. Heart valve tissue engineering. Transpl Immunol. 2004; 12: 359–365.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Nugent HM, Edelman ER. Tissue engineering therapy for cardiovascular disease. Circ Res. 2003; 92: 1068–1078.
21. Papadaki M. Promises and challenges in tissue engineering. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2001; 20: 117, 126.
22. Perry TE, Roth SJ. Cardiovascular tissue engineering: constructing living tissue cardiac valves and blood vessels using bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and peripheral blood cells. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2003; 18: 30–37.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
23. Rabkin E, Schoen FJ. Cardiovascular tissue engineering. Cardiovasc Pathol. 2002; 11: 305–317.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Rabkin-Aikawa E, Mayer JE Jr, Schoen FJ. Heart valve regeneration. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2005; 94: 141–179.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Rashid ST, Salacinski HJ, Hamilton G, Seifalian AM. The use of animal models in developing the discipline of cardiovascular tissue engineering: a review. Biomaterials. 2004; 25: 1627–1637.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Sarraf CE, Harris AB, McCulloch AD, Eastwood M. Heart valve and arterial tissue engineering. Cell Prolif. 2003; 36: 241–254.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. Stock UA, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering: current state and prospects. Annu Rev Med. 2001; 52: 443–451.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Stock UA, Mayer JE Jr. Tissue engineering of cardiac valves on the basis of PGA/PLA Co-polymers. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2001; 11: 249–260.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Stock UA, Vacanti JP, Mayer JE Jr, Wahlers T. Tissue engineering of heart valves–current aspects. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002; 50: 184–193.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Terada S, Sato M, Sevy A, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering in the twenty-first century. Yonsei Med J. 2000; 41: 685–691.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Vesely I, Noseworthy R, Pringle G. The hybrid xenograft/autograft bioprosthetic heart valve: in vivo evaluation of tissue extraction. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995; 60: S359–S364.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
32. Wu Z, Shi Y. [Progress in studies of tissue-engineered heart valves]. Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi. 2002; 19: 132–134.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Zimmermann WH, Eschenhagen T. Tissue engineering of aortic heart valves. Cardiovasc Res. 2003; 60: 460–462.
34. American Heart Association. Meeting Report: Tissue-engineered valves give diseased hearts new life. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 2003. Available at: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3016892.
35. Nerem RM, Ratner B. The origin of the term "tissue engineering." In: Vesely I, ed. 2005.
36. Eaglstein WH, Falanga V. Tissue engineering and the development of Apligraf, a human skin equivalent. Clin Ther. 1997; 19: 894–905.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Rheinwald JG, Green H. Serial cultivation of strains of human epidermal keratinocytes: the formation of keratinizing colonies from single cells. Cell. 1975; 6: 331–343.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38. Berthiaume F, Yarmush ML. Tissue engineering. In: Bronzino JD, ed. The Biomedical Engineering Handbook. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press Inc; 1995: 1556–1566.
39. McIntire LV, Greisler HP, Griffith L, Johnson PC, Mooney DJ, Mrksich M, Parenteau NL, Smith D. WTEC Panel Report on Tissue Engineering Research. Baltimore, Md: Loyola College; 2002.
40. Carpentier A. From valvular xenograft to valvular bioprosthesis (1965–1977). Med Instrum. 1977; 11: 98–101.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. O’Brien MF, Gardner MA, Garlick RB, Davison MB, Thomson HL, Burstow DJ. The CryoLife-O’Brien stentless aortic porcine xenograft valve. J Card Surg. 1998; 13: 376–385.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
42. Schoen FJ, Levy RJ. Calcification of tissue heart valve substitutes: progress toward understanding and prevention. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 79: 1072–1080.
43. Melina G, De Robertis F, Gaer JA, Amrani M, Khaghani A, Yacoub MH. Mid-term pattern of survival, hemodynamic performance and rate of complications after Medtronic freestyle versus homograft full aortic root replacement: results from a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004; 13: 972–975;discussion 975–976.
44. Gonzalez-Lavin L, Ross D. Homograft aortic valve replacement. A five-year experience at the National Heart Hospital, London. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1970; 60: 1–12.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Al-Halees Z, Gometza B, Duran CM. Aortic valve repair with bovine pericardium. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998; 65: 601–602.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
46. Kouchoukos NT, Masetti P, Nickerson NJ, Castner CF, Shannon WD, Davila-Roman VG. The Ross procedure: long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004; 78: 773–781;discussion 773–781.
47. McGrath LB, Fernandez J, Laub GW, Anderson WA, Bailey BM, Chen C. Perioperative events in patients with failed mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995; 60: S475–S478.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
48. Biglioli P, Di Matteo S, Parolari A, Antona C, Arena V, Sala A. Reoperative cardiac valve surgery: a multivariable analysis of risk factors. Cardiovasc Surg. 1994; 2: 216–222.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
49. Jamieson WR, Munro AI, Miyagishima RT, Grunkemeier GL, Burr LH, Lichtenstein SV, Tyers GF. Multiple mechanical valve replacement surgery comparison of St. Jude Medical and CarboMedics prostheses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1998; 13: 151–159.
50. Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Oprian C, Kim T, Rahimtoola S. A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 1289–1296.
51. Marchand MA, Aupart MR, Norton R, Goldsmith IR, Pelletier LC, Pellerin M, Dubiel T, Daenen WJ, Herijgers P, Casselman FP, Holden MP, David TE. Fifteen-year experience with the mitral Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71: S236–S239.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
52. Biglioli P, Spampinato N, Cannata A, Musumeci A, Parolari A, Gagliardi C, Alamanni F. Long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: effect of patient age. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004; 13 (suppl 1): S49–S51.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
53. Schoen FJ. Pathologic findings in explanted clinical bioprosthetic valves fabricated from photooxidized bovine pericardium. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998; 7: 174–179.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
54. Ellis JT, Healy TM, Fontaine AA, Saxena R, Yoganathan AP. Velocity measurements and flow patterns within the hinge region of a Medtronic Parallel bileaflet mechanical valve with clear housing. J Heart Valve Dis. 1996; 5: 591–599.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
55. Stalenhoef JE, Mellema EC, Veeger NJ, Ebels T. Thrombogenicity and reoperation of the St. Jude Medical Silzone valve: a comparison with the conventional St. Jude Medical valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 2003; 12: 635–639.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
56. Grunkemeier GL, Wu Y. The Silzone effect: how to reconcile contradictory reports? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004; 25: 371–375.
57. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, Borenstein N, Tron C, Bauer F, Derumeaux G, Anselme F, Laborde F, Leon MB. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation. 2002; 106: 3006–3008.
58. Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards Lifesciences Delays Percutaneous Aortic Heart Valve Clinical Trials to Incorporate New Delivery System. News release. Irvine, Calif: Edwards Lifesciences; 2005. Available at: http://www.edwards.com/NewsRoom/NR20050613.htm.
59. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41: 893–904.
60. Schoen FJ, Levy RJ. Founder’s Award, 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, perspectives. Providence, RI, April 28–May 2, 1999. Tissue heart valves: current challenges and future research perspectives. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999; 47: 439–465.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
61. Kanter KR, Budde JM, Parks WJ, Tam VK, Sharma S, Williams WH, Fyfe DA. One hundred pulmonary valve replacements in children after relief of right ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73: 1801–1806;discussion 1806–1807.
62. Vrandecic M, Filho BG, Fantini F, Barbosa J, Martins I, Cesar de Oliveira O, Martins C, Max R, Drumond L, Oliveira C, Ferrufino A, Alcocer E, Silva JA, Vrandecic E. The use of bovine pericardium for pulmonary valve reconstruction or conduit replacement: long-term clinical follow up. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998; 7: 54–61.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
64. Meinhart JG, Deutsch M, Fischlein T, Howanietz N, Froschl A, Zilla P. Clinical autologous in vitro endothelialization of 153 infrainguinal ePTFE grafts. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71: S327–S331.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
65. Alferiev I, Stachelek SJ, Lu Z, Fu AL, Sellaro TL, Connolly JM, Bianco RW, Sacks MS, Levy RJ. Prevention of polyurethane valve cusp calcification with covalently attached bisphosphonate diethylamino moieties. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003; 66: 385–395.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
66. Grimm M, Eybl E, Grabenwoger M, Griesmacher A, Losert U, Bock P, Muller MM, Wolner E. Biocompatibility of aldehyde-fixed bovine pericardium. An in vitro and in vivo approach toward improvement of bioprosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1991; 102: 195–201.[Abstract]
67. Leukauf C, Szeles C, Salaymeh L, Grimm M, Grabenwoger M, Losert U, Moritz A, Wolner E. In vitro and in vivo endothelialization of glutaraldehyde treated bovine pericardium. J Heart Valve Dis. 1993; 2: 230–235.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
68. Brendel K, Duhamel RC. Body Implants of Extracellular Matrix and Means and Methods of Making and Using Such Implants. Chicago: University Patents Inc; 1989.
69. Klement P, Wilson GJ, Yeger H. Process for Preparing Biological Mammalian Implants. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: HSC Research Development Corp; 1988.
70. Vesely I, Noseworthy R. Culture of human aortic fibroblasts on porcine bioprosthetic valves. Can J Cardiol. 1992; 8: 65B.
71. Courtman DW, Pereira CA, Omar S, Langdon SE, Lee JM, Wilson GJ. Biomechanical and ultrastructural comparison of cryopreservation and a novel cellular extraction of porcine aortic valve leaflets. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995; 29: 1507–1516.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
72. Hilbert SL, Yanagida R, Souza J, Wolfinbarger L, Jones AL, Krueger P, Stearns G, Bert A, Hopkins RA. Prototype anionic detergent technique used to decellularize allograft valve conduits evaluated in the right ventricular outflow tract in sheep. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004; 13: 831–840.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
73. Konertz W, Dohmen PM, Liu J, Beholz S, Dushe S, Posner S, Lembcke A, Erdbrugger W. Hemodynamic characteristics of the Matrix P decellularized xenograft for pulmonary valve replacement during the Ross operation. J Heart Valve Dis. 2005; 14: 78–81.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
74. Dohmen PM, Costa F, Lopes SV, Yoshi S, Souza FP, Vilani R, da Costa MB, Konertz W. Results of a decellularized porcine heart valve implanted into the juvenile sheep model. Heart Surg Forum. 2005; 8: E100–E104.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
75. Stamm C, Khosravi A, Grabow N, Schmohl K, Treckmann N, Drechsel A, Nan M, Schmitz KP, Haubold A, Steinhoff G. Biomatrix/polymer composite material for heart valve tissue engineering. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004; 78: 2084–2093.
76. Schenke-Layland K, Riemann I, Opitz F, Konig K, Halbhuber KJ, Stock UA. Comparative study of cellular and extracellular matrix composition of native and tissue engineered heart valves. Matrix Biol. 2004; 23: 113–125.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
77. Leyh RG, Wilhelmi M, Rebe P, Fischer S, Kofidis T, Haverich A, Mertsching H. In vivo repopulation of xenogeneic and allogeneic acellular valve matrix conduits in the pulmonary circulation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 75: 1457–1463;discussion 1463.
78. Rieder E, Kasimir MT, Silberhumer G, Seebacher G, Wolner E, Simon P, Weigel G. Decellularization protocols of porcine heart valves differ importantly in efficiency of cell removal and susceptibility of the matrix to recellularization with human vascular cells. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004; 127: 399–405.
79. Grauss RW, Hazekamp MG, van Vliet S, Gittenberger-de Groot AC, DeRuiter MC. Decellularization of rat aortic valve allografts reduces leaflet destruction and extracellular matrix remodeling. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003; 126: 2003–2010.
80. Korossis SA, Booth C, Wilcox HE, Watterson KG, Kearney JN, Fisher J, Ingham E. Tissue engineering of cardiac valve prostheses II: biomechanical characterization of decellularized porcine aortic heart valves. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002; 11: 463–471.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
81. Bertipaglia B, Ortolani F, Petrelli L, Gerosa G, Spina M, Pauletto P, Casarotto D, Marchini M, Sartore S. Cell characterization of porcine aortic valve and decellularized leaflets repopulated with aortic valve interstitial cells: the VESALIO Project (Vitalitate Exornatum Succedaneum Aorticum Labore Ingenioso Obtenibitur). Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 75: 1274–1282.
82. Long L, Wu C, Pan L, Qi X, Hong T. [Preparation of heart valve scaffold and cell seeding]. Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi. 2004; 21: 610–613.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
83. Ye FL, Xu ZY, Zhang BR. [Preparation of acellularized porcine heart valve and seeding of bovine aortic endothelial cells]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2003; 17: 493–495.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
84. Wu X, Zhu J, Liu Y, Cao X. [Construction of bioprosthetic heart valve with viable cells]. Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi. 2003; 20: 750–753.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
85. Sandrin MS, McKenzie IF. Gal alpha (1,3)Gal, the major xenoantigen(s) recognised in pigs by human natural antibodies. Immunol Rev. 1994; 141: 169–190.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
86. Smith JD, Hornick PI, Rasmi N, Rose ML, Yacoub MH. Effect of HLA mismatching and antibody status on "homovital" aortic valve homograft performance. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998; 66: S212–S215.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
87. Goldstein S, Clarke DR, Walsh SP, Black KS, O’Brien MF. Transpecies heart valve transplant: advanced studies of a bioengineered xeno-autograft. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000; 70: 1962–1969.
88. CryoLife Inc. News Release: CryoLife, Inc. receives ‘CE Mark’ approval for distribution of Synergraft tissue-engineered pulmonary heart valves in Europe. Atlanta, Ga: CryoLife Inc; 2000. Available at: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=40466.
89. Steinhoff G, Stock U, Karim N, Mertsching H, Timke A, Meliss RR, Pethig K, Haverich A, Bader A. Tissue engineering of pulmonary heart valves on allogenic acellular matrix conduits: in vivo restoration of valve tissue. Circulation. 2000; 102 (suppl III): III-50–III-55.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
90. Booth C, Korossis SA, Wilcox HE, Watterson KG, Kearney JN, Fisher J, Ingham E. Tissue engineering of cardiac valve prostheses I: development and histological characterization of an acellular porcine scaffold. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002; 11: 457–462.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
91. Spina M, Ortolani F, Messlemani AE, Gandaglia A, Bujan J, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Vesely I, Gerosa G, Casarotto D, Petrelli L, Marchini M. Isolation of intact aortic valve scaffolds for heart-valve bioprostheses: extracellular matrix structure, prevention from calcification, and cell repopulation features. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003; 67: 1338–1350.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
92. Schoen FJ, Mitchell RN, Jonas RA. Pathological considerations in cryopreserved allograft heart valves. J Heart Valve Dis. 1995; 4 (suppl 1): S72–S75;discussion S75–S76.
93. Schenke-Layland K, Opitz F, Gross M, Doring C, Halbhuber KJ, Schirrmeister F, Wahlers T, Stock UA. Complete dynamic repopulation of decellularized heart valves by application of defined physical signals–an in vitro study. Cardiovasc Res. 2003; 60: 497–509.
94. Green H, Kehinde O, Thomas J. Growth of cultured human epidermal cells into multiple epithelia suitable for grafting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979; 76: 5665–5668.
95. Shinoka T, Breuer CK, Tanel RE, Zund G, Miura T, Ma PX, Langer R, Vacanti JP, Mayer JE Jr. Tissue engineering heart valves: valve leaflet replacement study in a lamb model. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995; 60: S513–S516.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
96. Sodian R, Sperling JS, Martin DP, Egozy A, Stock U, Mayer JE Jr, Vacanti JP. Fabrication of a trileaflet heart valve scaffold from a polyhydroxyalkanoate biopolyester for use in tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. 2000; 6: 183–188.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
97. Matheny RG, Hutchison ML, Dryden PE, Hiles MD, Shaar CJ. Porcine small intestine submucosa as a pulmonary valve leaflet substitute. J Heart Valve Dis. 2000; 9: 769–774;discussion 774–775.
98. Bell E, Ivarsson B, Merrill C. Production of a tissue-like structure by contraction of collagen lattices by human fibroblasts of different proliferative potential in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979; 76: 1274–1278.
99. Grinnell F, Lamke CR. Reorganization of hydrated collagen lattices by human skin fibroblasts. J Cell Sci. 1984; 66: 51–63.[Abstract]
100. Tranquillo RT, Durrani MA, Moon AG. Tissue engineering science: consequences of cell traction force. Cytotechnology. 1992; 10: 225–250.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
101. Guidry C, Grinnell F. Studies on the mechanism of hydrated collagen gel reorganization by human skin fibroblasts. J Cell Sci. 1985; 79: 67–81.[Abstract]
102. Grinnell F. Fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, and wound contraction. J Cell Biol. 1994; 124: 401–404.
103. Eckes B, Zigrino P, Kessler D, Holtkotter O, Shephard P, Mauch C, Krieg T. Fibroblast-matrix interactions in wound healing and fibrosis. Matrix Biol. 2000; 19: 325–332.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
104. Barocas VH, Tranquillo RT. An anisotropic biphasic theory of tissue-equivalent mechanics: the interplay among cell traction, fibrillar network deformation, fibril alignment, and cell contact guidance. J Biomech Eng. 1997; 119: 137–145.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
105. Niklason LE, Gao J, Abbott WM, Hirschi KK, Houser S, Marini R, Langer R. Functional arteries grown in vitro. Science. 1999; 284: 489–493.
106. Tranquillo R, Girton T, Neidert M. Tissue Equivalent Approach to a Tissue-Engineered Cardiovascular Valve. Minneapolis: Regents of the University of Minnesota; 2003.
107. Tower TT, Neidert MR, Tranquillo RT. Fiber alignment imaging during mechanical testing of soft tissues. Ann Biomed Eng. 2002; 30: 1221–1233.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
108. Oakes BW, Batty AC, Handley CJ, Sandberg LB. The synthesis of elastin, collagen, and glycosaminoglycans by high density primary cultures of neonatal rat aortic smooth muscle. An ultrastructural and biochemical study. Eur J Cell Biol. 1982; 27: 34–46.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
109. Shi Y, Vesely I. Fabrication of mitral valve chordae by directed collagen gel shrinkage. Tissue Eng. 2003; 9: 1233–1242.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
110. Seliktar D, Black RA, Vito RP, Nerem RM. Dynamic mechanical conditioning of collagen-gel blood vessel constructs induces remodeling in vitro. Ann Biomed Eng. 2000; 28: 351–362.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
111. Girton TS, Oegema TR, Tranquillo RT. Exploiting glycation to stiffen and strengthen tissue equivalents for tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999; 46: 87–92.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
112. Grinnell F. Fibroblast biology in three-dimensional collagen matrices. Trends Cell Biol. 2003; 13: 264–269.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
113. Cuy JL, Beckstead BL, Brown CD, Hoffman AS, Giachelli CM. Adhesive protein interactions with chitosan: consequences for valve endothelial cell growth on tissue-engineering materials. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003; 67: 538–547.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
114. Nuttelman CR, Henry SM, Anseth KS. Synthesis and characterization of photocrosslinkable, degradable poly(vinyl alcohol)-based tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2002; 23: 3617–3626.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
115. Masters KS, Shah DN, Leinwand LA, Anseth KS. Crosslinked hyaluronan scaffolds as a biologically active carrier for valvular interstitial cells. Biomaterials. 2005; 26: 2517–2525.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
116. Masters KS, Shah DN, Walker G, Leinwand LA, Anseth KS. Designing scaffolds for valvular interstitial cells: cell adhesion and function on naturally derived materials. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004; 71: 172–180.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
117. Rothenburger M, Volker W, Vischer P, Glasmacher B, Scheld HH, Deiwick M. Ultrastructure of proteoglycans in tissue-engineered cardiovascular structures. Tissue Eng. 2002; 8: 1049–1056.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
118. Rothenburger M, Volker W, Vischer JP, Berendes E, Glasmacher B, Scheld HH, Deiwick M. Tissue engineering of heart valves: formation of a three-dimensional tissue using porcine heart valve cells. ASAIO J. 2002; 48: 586–591.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
119. Jockenhoevel S, Zund G, Hoerstrup SP, Chalabi K, Sachweh JS, Demircan L, Messmer BJ, Turina M. Fibrin gel–advantages of a new scaffold in cardiovascular tissue engineering. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001; 19: 424–430.
120. Vesely I. Aortic root dilation prior to valve opening explained by passive hemodynamics. J Heart Valve Dis. 2000; 9: 16–20.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
121. Vesely I, Boughner D. Analysis of the bending behaviour of porcine xenograft leaflets and of neutral aortic valve material: bending stiffness, neutral axis and shear measurements. J Biomech. 1989; 22: 655–671.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
122. Vesely I, Noseworthy R. Micromechanics of the fibrosa and the ventricularis in aortic valve leaflets. J Biomech. 1992; 25: 101–113.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
123. Vesely I, Boughner DR, Leeson-Dietrich J. Bioprosthetic valve tissue viscoelasticity: implications on accelerated pulse duplicator testing. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995; 60: S379–S382;discussion S383.
124. Scott MJ, Vesely I. Morphology of porcine aortic valve cusp elastin. J Heart Valve Dis. 1996; 5: 464–471.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
125. Vesely I. Reconstruction of loads in the fibrosa and ventricularis of porcine aortic valves. ASAIO J. 1996; 42: M739–M746.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
126. Vesely I. The role of elastin in aortic valve mechanics. J Biomech. 1998; 31: 115–123.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
127. Vesely I, Barber JE, Ratliff NB. Tissue damage and calcification may be independent mechanisms of bioprosthetic heart valve failure. J Heart Valve Dis. 2001; 10: 471–477.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
128. Adamczyk MM, Vesely I. Characteristics of compressive strains in porcine aortic valves cusps. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002; 11: 75–83.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
129. Liao J, Vesely I. A structural basis for the size-related mechanical properties of mitral valve chordae tendineae. J Biomech. 2003; 36: 1125–1133.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
130. Vesely I. The evolution of bioprosthetic heart valve design and its impact on durability. Cardiovasc Pathol. 2003; 12: 277–286.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
131. Liao J, Vesely I. Relationship between collagen fibrils, glycosaminoglycans, and stress relaxation in mitral valve chordae tendineae. Ann Biomed Eng. 2004; 32: 977–983.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
132. Sacks MS, Smith DB, Hiester ED. The aortic valve microstructure: effects of transvalvular pressure. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 41: 131–141.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
133. Sacks MS, Smith DB. Effects of accelerated testing on porcine bioprosthetic heart valve fiber architecture. Biomaterials. 1998; 19: 1027–1036.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
134. Gloeckner DC, Billiar KL, Sacks MS. Effects of mechanical fatigue on the bending properties of the porcine bioprosthetic heart valve. ASAIO J. 1999; 45: 59–63.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
135. Vyavahare N, Ogle M, Schoen FJ, Zand R, Gloeckner DC, Sacks M, Levy RJ. Mechanisms of bioprosthetic heart valve failure: fatigue causes collagen denaturation and glycosaminoglycan loss. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999; 46: 44–50.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
136. Billiar KL, Sacks MS. Biaxial mechanical properties of the natural and glutaraldehyde treated aortic valve cusp–Part I: Experimental results. J Biomech Eng. 2000; 122: 23–30.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
137. Sacks MS. The biomechanical effects of fatigue on the porcine bioprosthetic heart valve. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2001; 11: 231–247.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
138. Wells SM, Sellaro T, Sacks MS. Cyclic loading response of bioprosthetic heart valves: effects of fixation stress state on the collagen fiber architecture. Biomaterials. 2005; 26: 2611–2619.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
139. Lee JM, Courtman DW, Boughner DR. The glutaraldehyde-stabilized porcine aortic valve xenograft. I. Tensile viscoelastic properties of the fresh leaflet material. J Biomed Mater Res. 1984; 18: 61–77.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
140. Julien M, Letouneau DR, Marois Y, Cardou A, King MW, Guidoin R, Chachra D, Lee JM. Shelf-life of bioprosthetic heart valves: a structural and mechanical study. Biomaterials. 1997; 18: 605–612.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
141. Talman EA, Boughner DR. Internal shear properties of fresh porcine aortic valve cusps: implications for normal valve function. J Heart Valve Dis. 1996; 5: 152–159.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
142. Carew EO, Talman EA, Boughner DR, Vesely I. Quasi-linear viscoelastic theory applied to internal shearing of porcine aortic valve leaflets. J Biomech Eng. 1999; 121: 386–392.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
143. Talman EA, Boughner DR. Effect of altered hydration on the internal shear properties of porcine aortic valve cusps. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71: S375–S378.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
144. Christie GW. Computer modelling of bioprosthetic heart valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1992; 6 (suppl 1): S95–S100;discussion S101.
145. Vesely I, Mako WJ. Comparison of the compressive buckling of porcine aortic valve cusps and bovine pericardium. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998; 7: 34–39.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
146. Hilbert S, Yanagida R, Krueger P, Linthurst Jones A, Wolfinbarger L, Hopkins R. A comparison of the explant pathology findings of anionic and nonionic detergent decellularized heart valve conduits. In: Nerem RM, ed. Cardiovascular Tissue Engineering: From Basic Biology to Cell-Based Therapies. Hilton Head, SC: Georgia Institute of Technology; 2004: 43.
147. Opitz F, Schenke-Layland K, Cohnert TU, Starcher B, Halbhuber KJ, Martin DP, Stock UA. Tissue engineering of aortic tissue: dire consequence of suboptimal elastic fiber synthesis in vivo. Cardiovasc Res. 2004; 63: 719–730.
148. Simon P, Kasimir MT, Seebacher G, Weigel G, Ullrich R, Salzer-Muhar U, Rieder E, Wolner E. Early failure of the tissue engineered porcine heart valve SYNERGRAFT in pediatric patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003; 23: 1002–1006;discussion 1006.
149. Lutolf MP, Hubbell JA. Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol. 2005; 23: 47–55.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
150. Hoerstrup SP, Kadner A, Melnitchouk S, Trojan A, Eid K, Tracy J, Sodian R, Visjager JF, Kolb SA, Grunenfelder J, Zund G, Turina MI. Tissue engineering of functional trileaflet heart valves from human marrow stromal cells. Circulation. 2002; 106 (suppl I): I-143–I-150.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
151. Shi Y, Ramamurthi A, Vesely I. Towards tissue engineering of a composite aortic valve. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2002; 38: 35–40.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
152. Doehring TC, Kahelin M, Vesely I. Mesostructure of the aortic valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 2005; 14: 679–686.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
153. Shi Y, Vesely I. Characterization of statically loaded tissue-engineered mitral valve chordae tendineae. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004; 69: 26–39.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
154. Carew EO, Barber JE, Vesely I. Role of preconditioning and recovery time in repeated testing of aortic valve tissues: validation through quasilinear viscoelastic theory. Ann Biomed Eng. 2000; 28: 1093–1100.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
155. Eisenberg LM, Markwald RR. Molecular regulation of atrioventricular valvuloseptal morphogenesis. Circ Res. 1995; 77: 1–6.
156. Denlinger JL, El-Mofty AA, Balazs EA. Replacement of the liquid vitreus with sodium hyaluronate in monkeys. II. Long-term evaluation. Exp Eye Res. 1980; 31: 101–117.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
157. Larsen NE, Pollak CT, Reiner K, Leshchiner E, Balazs EA. Hylan gel biomaterial: dermal and immunologic compatibility. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993; 27: 1129–1134.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
158. Larsen NE, Leshchiner E, Balazs EA, Belmonte C. Biocompatibility of hylan polymers in various tissue compartments. In: Mikos AG, Leong KW, Radomsky ML, Tamada JA, Yaszemski MJ, eds. Polymers in Medicine and Pharmacy. Pittsburgh, Penn: Materials Research Society; 1995: 149–153.
159. Balasz EA, Leshchiner A. Crosslinked Gels of Hyaluronic Acid and Products. Ridgefield, NJ: Biomatrix Inc; 1984.
160. Ramamurthi A, Vesely I. Ultraviolet light-induced modification of crosslinked hyaluronan gels. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003; 66: 317–329.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
161. Ramamurthi A, Vesely I. Smooth muscle cell adhesion on crosslinked hyaluronan gels. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 60: 195–205.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
162. Ramamurthi A, Vesely I. Evaluation of the matrix-synthesis potential of crosslinked hyaluronan gels for tissue engineering of aortic heart valves. Biomaterials. 2005; 26: 999–1010.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
163. Taylor PM, Batten P, Brand NJ, Thomas PS, Yacoub MH. The cardiac valve interstitial cell. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2003; 35: 113–118.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
164. Taylor PM, Allen SP, Yacoub MH. Phenotypic and functional characterization of interstitial cells from human heart valves, pericardium and skin. J Heart Valve Dis. 2000; 9: 150–158.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
165. Della Rocca F, Sartore S, Guidolin D, Bertiplaglia B, Gerosa G, Casarotto D, Pauletto P. Cell composition of the human pulmonary valve: a comparative study with the aortic valve–the VESALIO Project. Vitalitate Exornatum Succedaneum Aorticum labore Ingegnoso Obtinebitur. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000; 70: 1594–1600.
166. Cimini M, Rogers KA, Boughner DR. Smoothelin-positive cells in human and porcine semilunar valves. Histochem Cell Biol. 2003; 120: 307–317.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
167. Heng BC, Haider H, Sim EK, Cao T, Ng SC. Strategies for directing the differentiation of stem cells into the cardiomyogenic lineage in vitro. Cardiovasc Res. 2004; 62: 34–42.
168. Atala A. Tissue engineering for the replacement of organ function in the genitourinary system. Am J Transplant. 2004; 4 (suppl 6): 58–73.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  F. J. Schoen Evolving Concepts of Cardiac Valve Dynamics: The Continuum of Development, Functional Structure, Pathobiology, and Tissue Engineering Circulation, October 28, 2008; 118(18): 1864 - 1880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Mehta, R. E. Peterson, and W. Heideman 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Exposure Prevents Cardiac Valve Formation in Developing Zebrafish Toxicol. Sci., August 1, 2008; 104(2): 303 - 311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. F. Padera Jr. and F. J. Schoen Pathology of Cardiac Surgery Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 111 - 178. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Krishnan, J. B. Hoying, H. Nguyen, H. Song, and J. A. Weiss Interaction of angiogenic microvessels with the extracellular matrix Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, December 1, 2007; 293(6): H3650 - H3658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Goldbarg, S. Elmariah, M. A. Miller, and V. Fuster Insights Into Degenerative Aortic Valve Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 25, 2007; 50(13): 1205 - 1213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Van Nooten, P. Somers, M. Cornelissen, S. Bouchez, F. Gasthuys, E. Cox, L. Sparks, and K. Narine Acellular porcine and kangaroo aortic valve scaffolds show more intense immune-mediated calcification than cross-linked Toronto SPV(R) valves in the sheep model Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, October 1, 2006; 5(5): 544 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Vincentelli, F. Juthier, and B. Jude Reply to the editor. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2006; 132(3): 737 - 737. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. M. Dohmen and W. Konertz Results With Decellularized Xenografts Circ. Res., August 18, 2006; 99(4): e10 - e10. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W.-H. Zimmermann, M. Didie, S. Doker, I. Melnychenko, H. Naito, C. Rogge, M. Tiburcy, and T. Eschenhagen Heart muscle engineering: An update on cardiac muscle replacement therapy Cardiovasc Res, August 1, 2006; 71(3): 419 - 429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Cebotari, A. Lichtenberg, I. Tudorache, A. Hilfiker, H. Mertsching, R. Leyh, T. Breymann, K. Kallenbach, L. Maniuc, A. Batrinac, et al. Clinical Application of Tissue Engineered Human Heart Valves Using Autologous Progenitor Cells Circulation, July 4, 2006; 114(1_suppl): I-132 - I-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Lichtenberg, I. Tudorache, S. Cebotari, M. Suprunov, G. Tudorache, H. Goerler, J.-K. Park, D. Hilfiker-Kleiner, S. Ringes-Lichtenberg, M. Karck, et al. Preclinical Testing of Tissue-Engineered Heart Valves Re-Endothelialized Under Simulated Physiological Conditions Circulation, July 4, 2006; 114(1_suppl): I-559 - I-565. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||