Key result
Testing biomaterials at room temperature (22-24°C) demonstrated better sensitivity in differentiating silicone from thromboresistant materials compared to testing at 37°C (p<0.05).
Why the study?
To develop and standardize a reliable in vitro dynamic thrombogenicity test protocol, key test parameters such as temperature that impact thrombus formation needed to be evaluated.
Does testing at room temperature compared to 37°C improve the differentiation of thrombogenic potential of biomaterials in an in vitro dynamic flow loop system?
Does testing at room temperature compared to 37°C improve the differentiation of thrombogenic potential of biomaterials in an in vitro dynamic flow loop system?
Testing at room temperature may be a viable and potentially more sensitive option for dynamic thrombogenicity assessment of biomaterials and medical devices compared to physiological temperature.
Temperature standardization is essential for reproducible in vitro thrombogenicity testing; leaves optimal parameters and clinical translation open.
To develop and standardize a reliable in vitro dynamic thrombogenicity test protocol, the key test parameters that could impact thrombus formation need to be investigated and understood. In this study, we evaluated the effect of temperature on the thrombogenic responses (thrombus surface coverage, thrombus weight, and platelet count reduction) of various materials using an in vitro blood flow loop test system. Whole blood from live sheep and cow donors was used to assess four materials with varying thrombogenic potentials: negative-control polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), positive-control latex, silicone, and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Blood, heparinized to a donor-specific concentration, was recirculated through a polyvinyl chloride tubing loop containing the test material at room temperature (22-24°C) for 1 hour, or at 37°C for 1 or 2 hours. The flow loop system could effectively differentiate a thrombogenic material (latex) from the other materials for both test temperatures and blood species ( p < 0.05). However, compared with 37°C, testing at room temperature appeared to have slightly better sensitivity in differentiating silicone (intermediate thrombogenic potential) from the relatively thromboresistant materials (PTFE and HDPE, p < 0.05). These data suggest that testing at room temperature may be a viable option for dynamic thrombogenicity assessment of biomaterials and medical devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (2023) studied Thrombogenicity testing of biomaterials. Testing at room temperature (22-24°C) vs. Testing at 37°C was evaluated on Thrombogenic responses (thrombus surface coverage, thrombus weight, and platelet count reduction) (p=<0.05). Testing biomaterials at room temperature (22-24°C) demonstrated better sensitivity in differentiating silicone from thromboresistant materials compared to testing at 37°C (p<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: