Selection of a Polyurethane Membrane for the Manufacture of Ventricles for a Totally Implantable Artificial Heart: Blood Compatibility and Biocompatibility Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Membranes made from 4 commercial poly(carbonate urethanes): Carbothane (CB), Chronoflex (CF), Corethane 80A (CT80), and Corethane 55D (CT55), and from 2 poly(ether urethanes): Tecoflex (TF) and Tecothane (TT) were prepared by solution casting and sterilized by either ethylene oxide (EO) or gamma radiation. Their biocompatibility was evaluated in vitro in terms of proliferation, cell viability, and adhesion characteristics of human umbilical veins (HUVEC), monocytes (THP-1), and skin fibroblasts, and by measuring complement activation through the generation of the C3a complex. Their hemocompatibility was determined by measuring the level of radiolabeled platelet, neutrophil, and fibrin adhesion in an ex vivo arteriovenous circuit study in piglets as well as via an in vitro hemolysis test. The results of this study showed no endothelial cell proliferation on any of the materials. The cell viability study revealed that the CB, CF, and TF membranes sterilized by EO maintained the highest percentage of monocyte viability after 72 h of incubation (>70%) while none of the gamma-sterilized membranes displayed any cell viability. The fibroblast adhesion and C3a generation assays revealed that none of the materials supported any cell adhesion or activated complement, regardless of the sterilization method. The hemolysis test also confirmed that the 4 poly(carbonate urethanes) were hemolytic while none of the poly(ether urethanes) were. Finally, the ex vivo study revealed that significantly more platelets adhered to the CB and CT55 membranes while the levels of neutrophil and fibrin deposition were observed to be similar for all 6 materials. In conclusion, the study identified the CF and TF membranes as having superior biocompatibility and hemocompatibility compared to the other polyurethanes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".