In vitro stability of a novel compliant poly(carbonate-urea)urethane to oxidative and hydrolytic stress.

Poly(ester)urethane and poly(ether)urethane vascular grafts fail in vivo because of hydrolytic and oxidative degradative mechanisms. Studies have shown that poly(carbonate)urethanes have enhanced resistance. There is still a need for a viable, nonrigid, small-diameter, synthetic vascular graft. In this study, we sought to confirm this by exposing a novel formulation of compliant poly(carbonate-urea)urethane (CPU) manufactured by an innovative process, resulting in a stress-free. Small-diameter prosthesis, and a conventional poly(ether)urethane Pulse-Tec graft known to readily undergo oxidation in a variety of degradative solutions, and we assessed them for the development of oxidative and hydrolytic degradation, changes in elastic properties, and chemical stability. To simulate the in vivo environment, we used buffered solutions of phospholipase A(2) and cholesterol esterase; solutions of H(2)O(2)/CoCl(2), t-butyl peroxide/CoCl(2) (t-but/CoCl(2)), and glutathione/t-butyl peroxide/CoCl(2) (Glut/t-but/CoCl(2)); and plasma fractions I-IV, which were derived from fresh human plasma centrifuged in poly(ethylene glycol). To act as a negative control, both graft types were incubated in distilled water. Samples of both graft types (100 mm with a 5.0-mm inner diameter) were incubated in these solutions at 37 degrees C for 70 days before environmental scanning electron microscopy, radial tensile strength and quality control, gel permeation chromatography, and in vitro compliance assessments were performed. Oxidative degradation was ascertained from significant changes in molecular weight with respect to a control on all Pulse-Tec grafts treated with t-but/CoCl(2), Glut/t-but/CoCl(2), and plasma fractions I-III. Pulse-Tec grafts exposed to the H(2)O(2)/CoCl(2) mixture had significantly greater compliance than controls incubated in distilled water (p < 0.001 at 50 mmHg). No changes in molecular weight with respect to the control were observed for the CPU samples; only those immersed in t-but/CoCl(2) and Glut/t-but/CoCl(2) showed an 11% increase in molecular weight to 108,000. Only CPU grafts treated with the Glut/t-but/CoCl(2) mixture exhibited significantly greater compliance (p < 0.05 at 50 mmHg). Overall, results from this study indicate that CPU presents a far greater chemical stability than poly(ether)-urethane grafts do.

[1]  R. Guidoin,et al.  A new generation of polyurethane vascular prostheses: rara avis or ignis fatuus? , 1999, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[2]  T. N. Salthouse Cellular enzyme activity at the polymer-tissue interface: a review. , 1976, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[3]  James M. Anderson,et al.  Polyurethane Elastomer Biostability , 1995, Journal of biomaterials applications.

[4]  J M Anderson,et al.  Human plasma alpha 2-macroglobulin promotes in vitro oxidative stress cracking of Pellethane 2363-80A: in vivo and in vitro correlations. , 1993, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[5]  M. Szycher,et al.  Surface Fissuring of Polyurethanes Following In Vivo Exposure , 1985 .

[6]  J. Santerre,et al.  Synthesis of Cholesterol Esterase by Monocyte-Derived Macrophages: A Potential Role in the Biodegradation of Poly(Urethane)s , 1999, Journal of biomaterials applications.

[7]  P. Urbański,et al.  Glass wool-H2O2/CoCl2 test system for in vitro evaluation of biodegradative stress cracking in polyurethane elastomers. , 1995, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[8]  A. M. Reed,et al.  A Solution Grade Biostable Polyurethane Elastomer: ChronoFlex® AR , 1994, Journal of biomaterials applications.

[9]  A. Brandwood,et al.  Degradation of medical-grade polyurethane elastomers: the effect of hydrogen peroxide in vitro. , 1993, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[10]  A. Hiltner,et al.  Long term biodegradation in vitro of poly(ether urethane urea): a mechanical property study , 1987 .

[11]  S. Froelich,et al.  Cholesterol esterase catalyzed hydrolysis of mixed micellar thiophosphatidylcholines: a possible charge-relay mechanism. , 1991, Biochemistry.

[12]  J M Anderson,et al.  Foreign-body giant cells and polyurethane biostability: in vivo correlation of cell adhesion and surface cracking. , 1991, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[13]  H. Kehlet,et al.  Postoperative ileus: a preventable event , 2000, The British journal of surgery.

[14]  C. Nathan,et al.  Secretory products of macrophages. , 1987, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[15]  J. Santerre,et al.  Application of macromolecular additives to reduce the hydrolytic degradation of polyurethanes by lysosomal enzymes. , 1997, Biomaterials.

[16]  R. Guidoin,et al.  Chemical stability of polyether urethanes versus polycarbonate urethanes. , 1997, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[17]  A. Seifalian,et al.  Effect of prolonged pulsatile shear stress in vitro on endothelial cell seeded PTFE and compliant polyurethane vascular grafts. , 1998, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[18]  S. Bowald,et al.  In Vitro and in Vivo Biodurability of a Compliant Microporous Vascular Graft , 1998, Journal of biomaterials applications.

[19]  R. Landel,et al.  Mechanical Properties of Polymers and Composites , 1993 .

[20]  A. Hiltner,et al.  Biodegradation of a polyurethane in vitro. , 1987, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[21]  B. Ratner,et al.  Variations between Biomer lots. 2: The effect of differences between lots on in vitro enzymatic and oxidative degradation of a commercial polyurethane. , 1993, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[22]  J M Anderson,et al.  In vivo biocompatibility and biostability of modified polyurethanes. , 1997, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[23]  R Guidoin,et al.  Physicochemical characterization of a hydrophilic microporous polyurethane vascular graft. , 1987, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[24]  J. Santerre,et al.  Biodegradation evaluation of polyether and polyester-urethanes with oxidative and hydrolytic enzymes. , 1994, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[25]  J. Santerre,et al.  Enzyme-biomaterial interactions: effect of biosystems on degradation of polyurethanes. , 1993, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[26]  H. Griesser Degradation of polyurethanes in biomedical applications—A review , 1991 .

[27]  L Pinchuk,et al.  A review of the biostability and carcinogenicity of polyurethanes in medicine and the new generation of 'biostable' polyurethanes. , 1994, Journal of biomaterials science. Polymer edition.

[28]  K. Ting,et al.  Functional consequences of phospholipase A2 activation in human monocytes. , 1990, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[29]  A. Seifalian,et al.  Compliance properties of conduits used in vascular reconstruction , 2000, The British journal of surgery.

[30]  J. Santerre,et al.  The effect of phospholipids on the biodegradation of polyurethanes by lysosomal enzymes. , 1997, Journal of biomaterials science. Polymer edition.

[31]  A. Takahara,et al.  Effect of soft segment chemistry on the biostability of segmented polyurethanes. II. In vitro hydrolytic degradation and lipid sorption. , 1992, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[32]  I. Hinberg,et al.  In vitro degradation of a poly(ether urethane) by trypsin. , 1991, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[33]  D. Williams,et al.  The biodegradation of poly(ether urethanes). , 1987, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[34]  W. Quist,et al.  Development of a Microporous Compliant Small Bore Vascular Graft , 1995, Journal of biomaterials applications.

[35]  B. Ratner,et al.  Analysis of in vitro enzymatic and oxidative degradation of polyurethanes. , 1988, Journal of biomedical materials research.