ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2019
Cytocompatibility and mechanical properties of surgical sealants for cardiovascular applications.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydrogel Adhesives for Gastrointestinal Perforation: Design Principles and Applications.Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2026Review
- Burst Pressure and Fatigue Durability of Commercially Available Duraplasty Sealants.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2026Article
- Glue-Related Left Main Coronary Stenosis After a Modified Bentall Procedure: IVUS-Guided PCI.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Molecular Design of a Naturally Derived Hemostatic Sealant with Prolonged Antimicrobial Activity for Repairing Elastic Organ Injuries.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- High-Performance Dopamine-Based Supramolecular Bio-Adhesives.Macromolecular rapid communications · 2024Article
- Multi-layered repair of high-flow CSF fistulae following endoscopic skull base surgery without nasal packing or lumbar drains: technical refinements to optimise outcome.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Tissue adhesive hemostatic microneedle arrays for rapid hemorrhage treatment.Bioactive materials · 2023Article
- Metabolic Study of Tetra-PEG-Based Hydrogel after Pelvic Implantation in Rats.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Degradable and Removable Tough Adhesive Hydrogels.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2021Article
- Bioadhesives for musculoskeletal tissue regeneration.Acta biomaterialia · 2020Review
- Tissue reactions to polyethylene glycol and glutaraldehyde-based surgical sealants in a rabbit aorta model.Journal of biomaterials applications · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.