Skip to main content
Log in

Advantages of decellularized bovine pericardial scaffolds compared to glutaraldehyde fixed bovine pericardial patches demonstrated in a 180-day implant ovine study

  • Full Length Paper
  • Published:
Cell and Tissue Banking Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Glutaraldehyde (GA)-fixed bovine pericardial patches remain the cardiovascular industry standard despite reports of degradation, thickening, inflammation, calcification and lack of tissue remodelling. Decellularization provides the opportunity to attenuate some of these immune-mediated processes. This study compared the mechanical and morphological integrity of bovine pericardium that is GA-fixated (Glycar® patches) or decellularized (BPS), using a proprietary protocol, following implantation in an ovine model. The impact of the processing methods on tissue strength and morphology was assessed prior to implantation. Pericardial patches were then implanted in the descending aorta and main pulmonary artery of juvenile sheep (n = 6 per group) for 180 days, and clinically evaluated using echocardiography. At explanation, patches were evaluated for strength, calcification and biological interaction. Histology demonstrated a wave-like appearance of well-separated collagen fibers for BPS scaffolds that provided pore sizes adequate to promote fibroblast infiltration. The collagen of the Glycar® patches showed loss of collagen fiber integrity, making the collagen densely compacted, contributing to insignificant recipient cell infiltration. The clinical performance of both groups was excellent, and echocardiography confirmed the absence of aneurysm formation, calcification and degeneration. Explanted Glycar® patches demonstrated cells in abundance within the fibrous encapsulation that separated the implant from the host tissue. More importantly, the fibrous encapsulation also contributed to patch thickening of both the explanted aorta and pulmonary patches. The decellularized pericardial scaffolds demonstrated recellularization, resistance to calcification, re-endothelialization and adequate strength after 180-day implantation. The proprietary decellularization protocol produced pericardial scaffolds that could be considered as an alternative to GA-fixed pericardial patches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The manuscript has no associated data.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Department of Anatomical Pathology, UFS, specifically Prof J Goedhals and the Centre for Confocal and Electron Microscopy, UFS.

Funding

The study was funded by the Department Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the article and deserve authorship.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Botes.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethics approval

The interfaculty Animal Ethics Committee of the University of the Free State (UFS-AED2015/0081) approved the study.

Consent for publication

We certify that all authors have agreed to be listed in the manuscript when submitted to peer review journals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Botes, L., Laker, L., Dohmen, P.M. et al. Advantages of decellularized bovine pericardial scaffolds compared to glutaraldehyde fixed bovine pericardial patches demonstrated in a 180-day implant ovine study. Cell Tissue Bank 23, 791–805 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-021-09988-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-021-09988-8

Keywords

Navigation