Pericardial tissue regeneration by urinary bladder matrix scaffolds in a preclinical porcine model

CECILIA ZUBIETA; ANDREA DE LORENZI; DAMIAN CRAIEM; JUAN MARTIN RIGANTI; MAURICIO RAMIREZ; CARLOS VIGLIANO; AMIGO NATALIA; FRANCO CIOTOLA; ARIEL PASCANER; ALEJANDRO NIEPONICE

Mar del Plata

Congreso; SAIC.SAI.SAFIS 2018; 2018

SAFIS

PERICARDIAL TISSUE REGENERATION BY URINARY BLADDER MATRIX SCAFFOLDS IN A PRECLINICAL PORCINE MODELNatalia Amigo, PhDb, Juan Martin Riganti, MDa, Cecilia Zubieta, MDa, Franco Ciotola, MDa, Mauricio Ramirez, MDa, Lorenzi Andrea, MDa, Ariel Pascaner, Engb, Carlos Vigliano, MD, PhDa, b, Damián Craiem, PhDb and Alejandro Nieponice, MD, PhDa, ba Esophageal Institute, Hospital Universitario Fundación Favaloro, Buenos Aires, Argentina.b Instituto de Medicina Traslacional, Trasplante y Bioingeniería (IMETTYB), Universidad Favaloro-CONICET, Bs As, ArgentinaClosing the pericardium after cardiac surgery is recommended to prevent postoperative adhesions to the sternum. However, it is frequently not possible. Synthetic materials have been used as substitutes, with limited results due to impaired remodeling and fibrotic tissue formation. Extracellular matrix scaffolds, specifically urinary bladder matrix scaffolds (UBM-ECM), recruit and facilitate the incorporation of native cells to promote constructive remodeling that resemble more the native tissue.Aims: Evaluate the host response to UBM-ECM scaffolds in pericardium defects closure after cardiac surgery; with focus in magnitude, strength and quality of adhesions and epicardial retraction, in a preclinical porcine model.12 Landrace pigs were subjected to median sternotomy and a 5x7cm pericardial defect was created. The test group (n=6) was subjected to UBM-ECM repair with a device of 5x7cm. Animals in the control group (n = 6) were left with the pericardium open defect. Animals were euthanized at 8 weeks. Endpoints included cardiac function (Echocardiography), gross morphology with adhesion assessment, mechanical testing and histology.Softer adhesions were found in ECM group, but strong adhesions and injury of the coronary bed were found in control group. The load at failure showed no differences between the ECM and native pericardium (199.9±59,2g vs. 405.3± 99.89g P=0.0536), but tissue was weaker than native pericardium (44.23±15.01g/mm vs. 146.5±24.38g/mm P