Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30274840›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2019

Cytocompatibility and mechanical properties of surgical sealants for cardiovascular applications.

Mark H Murdock, Jordan T Chang, Samuel K Luketich, Drake Pedersen, George S Hussey, Antonio D'Amore, Stephen F Badylak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. High-Performance Dopamine-Based Supramolecular Bio-Adhesives.Macromolecular rapid communications · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Degradable and Removable Tough Adhesive Hydrogels.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mark H MurdockDepartment of Surgery, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Jordan T ChangDepartment of Surgery, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Samuel K LuketichDepartments of Surgery and Bioengineering, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Drake PedersenDepartments of Surgery and Bioengineering, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
George S HusseyDepartment of Surgery, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Antonio D'AmoreDepartments of Surgery and Bioengineering, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Stephen F BadylakDepartment of Surgery, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. Electronic address: badysx@upmc.edu.

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR001858 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI RADOMSKI, THOMAS, RUBIO, DORIS M · 2016 to 2025
$11.1M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe present study compared physical, mechanical, and biologic characteristics of 4 clinically available surgical sealants for cardiovascular repair.

methodsBioGlue (Cryolife Inc, Kennesaw, Ga), PreveLeak (Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, St Louis, Mo), Tridyne VS (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ), and Coseal (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Westlake Village, Calif) were compared for the following properties: hydrated swelling, cytocompatibility, burst strength, biaxial stretching (elasticity), and in vitro degradation.

resultsSealants showed a wide range of swelling upon hydration. By gravimetric and volumetric measurement, swelling was greatest for Coseal followed by Tridyne VS, BioGlue, and PreveLeak. Tridyne VS was the most cytocompatible based on Alamar Blue assay results, supporting 85% cell survival compared with 36% to 39% survival with the other sealants. All sealants withstood pressure above mean arterial pressure (70-110 mm Hg) and physiologic systolic blood pressure (90-140 mm Hg) in an ex vivo arterial flow burst model; lowest peak pressure at failure was PreveLeak at 235 ± 48 mm Hg, and highest peak pressure at failure was BioGlue at 596 ± 72 mm Hg. Biaxial tensile testing showed no differences in elasticity between ex vivo porcine aorta and carotid arteries and Tridyne VS or Coseal, and BioGlue and PreveLeak were significantly stiffer. In vitro degradation time for Coseal was 6 days and 21 days for Tridyne VS. No degradation was observed in BioGlue or PreveLeak for 30 days.

conclusionsAlthough all sealants withstood supraphysiologic arterial pressure, there were differences in characteristics that may be important in clinical outcome. Coseal degradation time was short compared with other sealants, whereas BioGlue and PreveLeak showed a significant compliance mismatch with native porcine carotid artery. Tridyne VS was significantly more cytocompatible than the other 3 sealants.

Indexed as

AnimalsAortaBiocompatible MaterialsCardiovascular Surgical ProceduresCarotid ArteriesElasticityHumansMechanical PhenomenaPolyethylene GlycolsPressureProteinsSwineTensile StrengthTissue AdhesivesBiocompatible MaterialsBio-glueCoSealPolyethylene GlycolsProteinsTissue Adhesivescompatibilitypressuresealant

Identifiers

PMID30274840
PMCPMC6343482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.