ReviewBioengineering & translational medicine2024
Advances in xenogeneic donor decellularized organs: A review on studies with sheep and porcine-derived heart valves.
Review in Bioengineering & translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application strategies of autologous and decellularized nerve grafts: Structural and functional recovery.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Detergent-Based Decellularization Preserves Extracellular Matrix Ultrastructure in Ovine Soft Tissues.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Decellularized bone extracellular matrix embedded with PLGA-linezolid microparticles for infected bone regeneration.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Scaffolds Mimicking the Tumor Microenvironment for In Vitro Malignancy Models.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Towards Safety and Regulation Criteria for Clinical Applications of Decellularized Organ-Derived Matrices.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advances in xenogeneic donor decellularized organs: A review on studies with sheep and porcine-derived heart valves.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart valve replacement surgeries are performed on patients suffering from abnormal heart valve function. In these operations, the problematic tissue is replaced with mechanical valves or with bioprosthetics that are being developed. The thrombotic effect of mechanical valves, reflecting the need for lifelong use of anticoagulation drugs, and the short-lived nature of biological valves make these two types of valves problematic. In addition, they cannot adapt to the somatic growth of young patients. Although decellularized scaffolds have shown some promise, a successful translation has so far evaded. Although decellularized porcine xenografts have been extensively studied in the literature, they have several disadvantages, such as a propensity for calcification in the implant model, a risk of porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) infection, and a high xenoantigen density. As seen in clinical data, it is clear that there are biocompatibility problems in almost all studies. However, since decellularized sheep heart valves have not been tried in the clinic, a large data pool could not be established. This review compares and contrasts decellularized porcine and sheep xenografts for heart valve tissue engineering. It reveals that decellularized sheep heart valves can be an alternative to pigs in terms of biocompatibility. In addition, it highlights the potential advantages of bioinks derived from the decellularized extracellular matrix in 3D bioprinting technology, emphasizing that they can be a new alternative for the application. We also outline the future prospects of using sheep xenografts for heart valve tissue engineering.
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.