Journal of Angiotherapy
Angiogenesis, Inflammation & Therapeutics | Online ISSN  2207-872X
  1. You are here:
  2. Home
  3. Journals
  4. Biological Sciences
RESEARCH ARTICLE   (Open Access)
Contents Vol 8 (8)

Comparative Analysis of Decellularization Methods on Bovine Pericardium Scaffolds for Cardiac Tissue Engineering

Komang Adhitya Arya Adiputra 1*, Heroe Soebroto 2, Ito Puruhito 2

+ Author Affiliations

Journal of Angiotherapy 8 (8) 1-7 https://doi.org/10.25163/angiotherapy.889833

Submitted: 15 May 2024 Revised: 01 October 2024  Published: 03 August 2024 

Abstract

Background: Congenital heart disease (CHD) involves structural heart abnormalities present since fetal development. Corrective surgery is often the ideal treatment, utilizing implants or scaffolds for tissue repair. However, repeated surgeries may be required due to declining function of grafts, leading to increased healthcare costs. Bovine pericardium is a promising scaffold material for tissue engineering due to its composition of collagen, glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), and proteoglycans. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of bovine pericardium scaffolds using different decellularization methods: sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Methods: An experimental study was conducted with bovine pericardium scaffolds divided into control and treatment groups. The treatment groups used decellularization with SDS (0.5%, 1%) and H2O2 (3%). Scaffolds were evaluated for tensile strength, strain, Young's modulus, and histological properties, including nuclear density, collagen density, and GAG content. Data were analyzed using statistical methods to compare the effectiveness of each decellularization technique. Results: Histological analysis revealed that all decellularized samples showed no nuclear density, while control samples displayed light nuclear density. Collagen density was light in scaffolds treated with SDS 0.5% and H2O2, while SDS 1% resulted in no collagen presence. GAG density was absent in SDS-treated samples and minimal in H2O2-treated samples. Tensile strength was highest in H2O2-treated scaffolds (24.01 N) and lowest in SDS 0.5%. SDS 1% showed the greatest tensile strain, while H2O2-treated scaffolds had the highest stiffness. Conclusion: The decellularization methods effectively removed cellular components from the bovine pericardium scaffolds, with varying impacts on the extracellular matrix. SDS 1% provided the most elastic scaffold, while H2O2 preserved tensile strength and stiffness. These findings suggest that the choice of decellularization method can be optimized based on the desired mechanical properties of the scaffold for cardiac tissue engineering applications. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term performance of these scaffolds in clinical settings.

Keywords: Bovine pericardium, Decellularization, Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), Tissue engineering

References

Ahmed, A., et al. (2020). Advances in scaffold-based heart valve tissue engineering. Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 35(6), 1230-1240.

Avolio, E., Caputo, M., and Madeddu, P. 2015. Stem cell therapy and tissue engineering for correction of congenital heart disease. Frontiers in  Cell Developmental Biology. 149697.

Avolio, E., et al. (2015). Bioprosthetic heart valves: Up-to-date. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine, 16(6), 367-378.

Badylak, S. F., et al. (2015). The role of extracellular matrix in tissue repair and regeneration. Biomaterials, 36, 36-44.

Bhatnagar, G., Fremes, S.E., Christakis, G.T., and Goldman, B.S. 1998. Early results using an ePTFE membrane for pericardial closure following coronary bypass grafting. Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 190–193.

Bhatnagar, R. S., et al. (1998). Structural role of collagen and glycosaminoglycans in tissue engineering. Matrix Biology, 17(1), 1-19.

Chan, B. P., et al. (2018). Optimization of decellularization processes for tissue engineering. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 106(1), 178-189.

Cohen, J. E., et al. (2016). Scaffolding materials in congenital heart defect repair: A review. Current Cardiology Reviews, 12(2), 130-138.

Gilbert, T. W., et al. (2012). Methods for decellularizing tissue constructs. Biomaterials, 33(13), 3300-3308.

Jenkins, K. J., et al. (2020). Trends in congenital heart surgery: Mortality, morbidity, and long-term outcomes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 75(7), 783-793.

Kheradvar, A., et al. (2015). Transcatheter valve technology and congenital heart disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 66(6), 1211-1223.

Li, X., et al. (2021). Emerging technologies in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Advanced Materials, 33(13), 2004712.

Liao, M., Liu, Z., Bao, J., Zhao, Z., Hu, J., Feng, X., and Feng, R. et al. 2008. A proteomic study of the aortic media in human thoracic aortic dissection: Implication for oxidative stress. Journal of Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery. 65-72.

Ma, Z., et al. (2019). Progress in tissue-engineered heart valves for congenital heart disease. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 146, 189-207.

Manji, R. A., et al. (2006). Current and future trends in cardiac prosthetic devices. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 82(6), 2238-2245.

Manji, R.A., Zhu, L.F., Nijjar, N.K., Rayner, D.C., Korbutt, G.S., Churchill, T.A., and Rajotte, R. V. 2006. Glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthetic heart valve conduits calcify and fail from xenograft rejection. Circulation. 318–327.

Mazza, G., et al. (2017). Tissue engineering for heart valve repair and replacement. Trends in Biotechnology, 35(6), 652-668.

Mendoza-Novelo, B., Avila, E.E., Cauich-Rodríguez, J. V., Jorge-Herrero, E., Rojo, F.J., Guinea, G. V., and Mata-Mata, J.L. 2011. Decellularization of pericardial tissue and its impact on tensile viscoelasticity and glycosaminoglycan content. Acta Biomaterialia. 1241–1248.

Mirsadraee, S., Wilcox, H.E., Korossis, S.A., Kearney, J.N., Watterson, K.G., Fisher, J., and Ingham, E. 2006. Development and Characterization of an Acellular Human Pericardial Matrix for Tissue Engineering. Tissue Enginering. 763–773.

Ozeren, M., et al. (2002). Cardiac repair strategies in congenital heart disease. Pediatric Cardiology, 23(4), 443-452.

Ozeren, M., Han, U., Mavioglu, I., Simsek, E., Soyal, M.T., Guler, G., and Yucel, E. 2002. Consequences of PTFE membrane used for prevention of re-entry injuries in rheumatic valve disease. Cardiovascular Surgery. 489–493.

Pagoulatou, A., et al. (2012). Decellularized tissue scaffolds for cardiac repair: An evaluation. Biomaterials, 33(25), 5857-5866.

Pashneh-Tala, S., et al. (2016). Strategies for engineering functional cardiovascular tissues. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 13(12), 730-743.

Pati, F., et al. (2017). Current advances in scaffolding materials for heart valve tissue engineering. Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews, 23(3), 228-241.

Rajabi, Z., et al. (2020). Surgical management of congenital heart defects. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 58(3), 599-608.

Razzouk, A., et al. (2003). Evolution of surgical repair for congenital heart defects. Pediatric Cardiology, 24(4), 328-334.

Roh, J. D., et al. (2010). The next frontier in tissue engineering: Functional tissue scaffolds. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 139(2), 431-435.

Sacks, M. S., et al. (2016). Biomechanical considerations in heart valve tissue engineering. Cardiovascular Research, 110(2), 159-170.

Saeed, A., et al. (2014). New frontiers in cardiac repair and regeneration. International Journal of Cardiology, 174(1), 7-16.

Schneider, A., et al. (2018). Mechanical properties of decellularized pericardium. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials, 106(1), 139-147.

Sierad, L. N., et al. (2012). The impact of scaffold mechanical properties on heart valve regeneration. Acta Biomaterialia, 8(7), 2691-2702.

Simon, P., et al. (2018). Clinical applications of tissue-engineered scaffolds in congenital heart surgery. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 54(2), 239-245.

Sundareswaran, K. S., et al. (2012). Advances in CHD management and repair techniques. Congenital Heart Disease, 7(1), 35-45.

Thomson, J. D., et al. (2018). Biological scaffolds for CHD repair: Advances and perspectives. Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, 11(3), 195-202.

Trivedi, S., et al. (2019). Analyzing the impact of surgical techniques on CHD outcomes. Pediatric Cardiology, 40(4), 674-682.

Urciuolo, A., et al. (2018). Engineering functional tissues for cardiac repair. Science Translational Medicine, 10(439), eaap8024.

Vesely, I., 2005. Heart Valve Tissue Engineering. Circulation Research. 743–755.

Vesely, I., et al. (2005). Biomechanics of tissue-engineered scaffolds. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 73(2), 173-184.

Wollmann, L., Suss, P., Mendonça, J., Luzia, C., Schittini, A., da Rosa, G.W.X., and Costa, F. et al. 2019. Characterization of Decellularized Human Pericardium for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Applications. Arquivos Brasileiros Cardiologia. 11.

Wu, Y., et al. (2019). Evaluating decellularized tissues for cardiac applications. Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, 12(1), 54-66.

Yin, M., et al. (2020). Evolving trends in CHD management. Circulation Research, 126(7), 939-951.

Zafar, M. A., et al. (2020). Advanced scaffolding techniques in CHD repair. Journal of Tissue Engineering, 11, 2041731420945606.

PDF
Abstract
Export Citation

View Dimensions


View Plumx


View Altmetric




Save

Citation
326
View

Share