In Vitro Calcification Evaluation of Polycarbonate Urethane-Impact of Production Processes
- PMID: 41081362
- DOI: 10.1111/aor.70028
In Vitro Calcification Evaluation of Polycarbonate Urethane-Impact of Production Processes
Abstract
Background: Heart valve diseases remain a leading cause of death in industrialized nations. Polycarbonate urethane (PCU) is a promising material for heart valve prostheses due to its biocompatibility and low calcification tendency. However, the impact of processing methods on calcification remains unclear.
Methods: PCU patches were fabricated via hot pressing or solution casting. Both groups (n = 3 each), along with bovine pericardium patches as positive controls (n = 3), were incubated for 10 weeks in a custom in vitro calcification fluid. Calcification, cytocompatibility, and material properties were assessed using light and electron microscopy, infrared spectroscopy, and gel permeation chromatography (GPC).
Results: Calcification was observed in hot-pressed PCU and control patches but not in solution-cast PCU. Both PCU types showed comparable cytocompatibility. Spectroscopy and GPC revealed chemical and structural changes in hot-pressed PCU, likely promoting calcification.
Conclusion: Hot pressing alters the chemical structure of PCU and increases its calcification propensity without affecting cytocompatibility. These findings highlight the importance of process control and in vitro screening during heart valve material development.
Keywords: biomaterials; electron microscopy; hot pressing; patch testing; prosthetic heart valve materials; surface analysis.
© 2025 The Author(s). Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
-
- F. B. Ahmad and R. N. Anderson, “The Leading Causes of Death in the US for 2020,” JAMA 325, no. 18 (2021): 1829–1830, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.5469.
-
- A. Timmis, N. Townsend, C. P. Gale, et al., “European Society of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2019,” European Heart Journal 41, no. 1 (2020): 12–85, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz859.
-
- P. Pibarot and J. G. Dumesnil, “Prosthetic Heart Valves: Selection of the Optimal Prosthesis and Long‐Term Management,” Circulation 119, no. 7 (2009): 1034–1048, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.778886.
-
- A. Ciubotaru, S. Cebotari, I. Tudorache, E. Beckmann, A. Hilfiker, and A. Haverich, “Biological Heart Valves,” Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering 58, no. 5 (2013): 389–397, https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt‐2012‐0148.
-
- G. M. Bernacca, T. G. Mackay, and D. J. Wheatley, “In Vitro Function and Durability of a Polyurethane Heart Valve: Material Considerations,” Journal of Heart Valve Disease 5, no. 5 (1996): 538–542.
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous
