Preclinical In-Vivo Assessment of Tissue Engineered Vascular Grafts and Selection of Appropriate Animal Models

  • Helga BergmeisterEmail author
  • Bruno K. Podesser
Living reference work entry
Part of the Reference Series in Biomedical Engineering book series (RSBE)


Worldwide the population affected by cardiovascular diseases is increasing. Among others, vascular occlusion due to atherosclerosis is the major underlying mechanism. Surgical revascularization therapies are often indicated and require sufficient vascular substitutes with long-term function. Autologous vessels such as the saphenous vein or internal thoracic artery are still the gold standard for small diameter revascularizations like coronary artery bypass procedures. Unfortunately these vessels are often not available or of poor quality due to concomitant disease. Alternative vascular grafts are needed to overcome these limitations. Significant advances have been made in the development of tissue-engineered conduits over the last decades showing impressive results especially when these conduits were applied in young patients in high-flow, low-pressure vascular applications. Clinical studies are also currently ongoing showing successful application of tissue engineered vascular grafts (TEVGs) in adults as arteriovenous shunt grafts for dialysis access.

TEVGs are classified as tissue engineered medicinal products. Currently new regulatory approaches for tissue-engineered products are defined to comply with safety issues and to guarantee consistent product quality. Preclinical testing in adequate animal models is an important part of these evaluations to assess safety and functionality of cardiovascular tissue engineered devices to predict successful long-term clinical application.

The selection of the most appropriate animal model is an important consideration for significant preclinical trials because there are important variables between the different animal species. Small and large animals have been assigned to different graft testing procedures. To simulate, all the challenges to the implant after human application knowledge of comparative anatomy and physiology of the animal model is of utmost importance. Although no unique ideal animal model for all requirements of vascular graft testing exists, there are a number of animal species, which can be used for different test settings. Appropriate interpretation of test results based on relevant knowledge of species-dependent characteristics will help to assess preclinical biocompatibility of TEVGs and to predict potential harm for the patient as far as possible.


  1. Abbott WM et al (1987) Effect of compliance mismatch on vascular graft patency. J Vasc Surg 5(2):376–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott WM et al (1993) Evaluation and performance standards for arterial prostheses. J Vasc Surg 17(4):746–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahasan A, Islam M, Kabria A, Rahman M, Hassan M, Uddin M (2012) Major variation in branches of the abdominal aorta in New Zealand white rabbit (Orycotolagus Cuniculus). Int J Nat Sci 2(4):91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmed M, Hamilton G, Seifalian AM (2014) The performance of a small-calibre graft for vascular reconstructions in a senescent sheep model. Biomaterials 35(33):9033–9040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexandre N et al (2016) Long term performance evaluation of small-diameter vascular grafts based on polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel and dextran and MSCs-based therapies using the ovine pre-clinical animal model. Int J Pharm 513(1–2):332–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ali ML et al (1996) The sheep as an animal model for heart valve research. Cardiovasc Surg 4(4):543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amensag S et al (2017) Pilot assessment of a human extracellular matrix-based vascular graft in a rabbit model. J Vasc Surg 65(3):839–847.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson DE et al (2014) Engineering an endothelialized vascular graft: a rational approach to study design in a non-human primate model. PLoS One 9(12):e115163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Andrews EJ, Ward B, Altmann NH (1979) Spontanous animal models of human disease. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Aussel A et al (2017) Chitosan-based hydrogels for developing a small-diameter vascular graft: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Biomed Mater 12(6):065003MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bahr A, Wolf E (2012) Domestic animal models for biomedical research. Reprod Domest Anim 47(Suppl 4):59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baumann DS et al (1994) The role of cholesterol accumulation in prosthetic vascular graft anastomotic intimal hyperplasia. J Vasc Surg 19(3):435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bayon Y et al (2015) Turning regenerative medicine breakthrough ideas and innovations into commercial products. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 21(6):560–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Benjamin EJ et al (2017) Heart disease and stroke statistics-2017 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 135(10):e146–e603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Benjamin EJ et al (2018) Heart disease and stroke statistics-2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 137(12):e67–e492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bergmeister H et al (2015) Biodegradable, thermoplastic polyurethane grafts for small diameter vascular replacements. Acta Biomater 11:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Best CA et al (2018) Oversized biodegradable arterial grafts promote enhanced neointimal tissue formation. Tissue Eng Part A 24:1251–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bianco RW, Wasiluk KR, Voight JM, Lahti MT, Rivard AL, Gallegos RP (2013) Large animal models in cardiac and vascular biomaterials research and assessment. In: Biomaterials science, 3rd edn. Academic, pp 653–676Google Scholar
  19. Bijnens AP et al (1997) Expression and characterization of recombinant porcine plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. Thromb Haemost 77(2):350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bockamp E et al (2002) Of mice and models: improved animal models for biomedical research. Physiol Genomics 11(3):115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brennan MP et al (2008) Tissue-engineered vascular grafts demonstrate evidence of growth and development when implanted in a juvenile animal model. Ann Surg 248(3):370–377Google Scholar
  22. Buscemi S et al (2017) Electrospun PHEA-PLA/PCL scaffold for vascular regeneration: a preliminary in vivo evaluation. Transplant Proc 49(4):716–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Byrom MJ et al (2010) Animal models for the assessment of novel vascular conduits. J Vasc Surg 52(1):176–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Callow AD (1996) Arterial homografts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 12(3):272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Callow AD et al (1982) Platelet–arterial synthetic graft interaction and its modification. Arch Surg 117(11):1447–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chesne P et al (2002) Cloned rabbits produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nat Biotechnol 20(4):366–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chlupac J, Filova E, Bacakova L (2010) Vascular prostheses: 50 years of advancement from synthetic towards tissue engineering and cell therapy. Rozhl Chir 89(1):85–94Google Scholar
  28. Cho SW et al (2009) Evidence for in vivo growth potential and vascular remodeling of tissue-engineered artery. Tissue Eng Part A 15(4):901–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Clarke DR et al (2001) Transformation of nonvascular acellular tissue matrices into durable vascular conduits. Ann Thorac Surg 71(5 Suppl):S433–S436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Crick SJ et al (1998) Anatomy of the pig heart: comparisons with normal human cardiac structure. J Anat 193(Pt 1):105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cutiongco MF et al (2016) Submillimeter diameter poly(vinyl alcohol) vascular graft patency in rabbit model. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 4:44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dahan N et al (2017) Dynamic autologous Reendothelialization of small-caliber arterial extracellular matrix: a preclinical large animal study. Tissue Eng Part A 23(1–2):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dahl SL et al (2011) Readily available tissue-engineered vascular grafts. Sci Transl Med 3(68):68ra9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. de Valence S et al (2012) Advantages of bilayered vascular grafts for surgical applicability and tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater 8(11):3914–3920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. DeBakey ME et al (2008) Clinical application of a new flexible knitted Dacron arterial substitute. 1958. Am Surg 74(5):381–386Google Scholar
  36. Dixon JL et al (1999) Dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction in diabetic pigs fed an atherogenic diet. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 19(12):2981–2992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Feingold HM et al (1986) Coagulation assays and platelet aggregation patterns in human, baboon, and canine blood. Am J Vet Res 47(10):2197–2199Google Scholar
  38. FELASA Working Group on Revision of Guidelines for Health Monitoring of Rodents and Rabbits et al (2014) FELASA recommendations for the health monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, Guinea pig and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units. Lab Anim 48(3):178–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Flecknell P (2018) Analgesics in small mammals. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract 21(1):83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fukunishi T et al (2016) Tissue-engineered small diameter arterial vascular grafts from cell-free nanofiber PCL/chitosan scaffolds in a sheep model. PLoS One 11(7):e0158555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fukunishi T et al (2017) Preclinical study of patient-specific cell-free nanofiber tissue-engineered vascular grafts using 3-dimensional printing in a sheep model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 153(4):924–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fukunishi T et al (2018) Role of bone marrow mononuclear cell seeding for nanofiber vascular grafts. Tissue Eng Part A 24(1–2):135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Furukoshi M, Moriwaki T, Nakayama Y (2016) Development of an in vivo tissue-engineered vascular graft with designed wall thickness (biotube type C) based on a novel caged mold. J Artif Organs 19(1):54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gao Y et al (2016) Pilot mouse study of 1 mm inner diameter (ID) vascular graft using electrospun poly(ester urea) nanofibers. Adv Healthc Mater 5(18):2427–2436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Glynn JJ, Hinds MT (2015) Endothelial outgrowth cells regulate coagulation, platelet accumulation, and respond to tumor necrosis factor similar to carotid endothelial cells. Tissue Eng Part A 21(1–2):174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Goyal A et al (2006) Development of a model system for preliminary evaluation of tissue-engineered vascular conduits. J Pediatr Surg 41(4):787–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gui L et al (2016) Implantable tissue-engineered blood vessels from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Biomaterials 102:120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gun G, Kues WA (2014) Current progress of genetically engineered pig models for biomedical research. Biores Open Access 3(6):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hamamdzic D, Wilensky RL (2013) Porcine models of accelerated coronary atherosclerosis: role of diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. J Diabetes Res 2013:761415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hampshire V (2016) Anticoagulation therapy in animal research. Lab Anim (NY) 45(11):431–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hanson SR et al (1985) Platelet interactions with Dacron vascular grafts. A model of acute thrombosis in baboons. Arteriosclerosis 5(6):595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hao YH et al (2006) Production of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) over-expressing piglets. Transgenic Res 15(6):739–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Harper DD et al (2001) Anatomic study of the pulmonary artery as a conduit for an artificial lung. ASAIO J 47(1):34–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hjortnaes J et al (2010) Intravital molecular imaging of small-diameter tissue-engineered vascular grafts in mice: a feasibility study. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 16(4):597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hoerstrup SP et al (2006) Functional growth in tissue-engineered living, vascular grafts: follow-up at 100 weeks in a large animal model. Circulation 114(1 Suppl):I159–I166Google Scholar
  56. Höhle P (2000) Zur Übertragbarkeit tierexperimenteller endovaskulärer Studien: Unterschiede der Gerinnungs- und Fibrinolyse-Systeme bei häufig verwendeten Tierspezies im Vergleich zum Menschen. RWTH Aachen University, Aachen. Google Scholar
  57. Hu S, Wang LV (2010) Photoacoustic imaging and characterization of the microvasculature. J Biomed Opt 15(1):011101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Huang F, Sun L, Zheng J (2008) In vitro and in vivo characterization of a silk fibroin-coated polyester vascular prosthesis. Artif Organs 32(12):932–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ichihara Y et al (2015) A new tissue-engineered biodegradable surgical patch for high-pressure systems dagger. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 20(6):768–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ishii D et al (2016) Development of in vivo tissue-engineered microvascular grafts with an ultra small diameter of 0.6 mm (MicroBiotubes): acute phase evaluation by optical coherence tomography and magnetic resonance angiography. J Artif Organs 19(3):262–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jiang B et al (2017) Assessment of an engineered endothelium via single-photon emission computed tomography. Biotechnol Bioeng 114(10):2371–2378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Joscht M et al (2016) Angiographic anatomy of external iliac arteries in the sheep. Anat Histol Embryol 45(6):443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ju YM et al (2017) Electrospun vascular scaffold for cellularized small diameter blood vessels: a preclinical large animal study. Acta Biomater 59:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kajbafzadeh AM et al (2016) Aortic valve conduit implantation in the descending thoracic aorta in a sheep model: the outcomes of pre-seeded scaffold. Int J Surg 28:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kampmeier T et al (2017) Provision of physiological data and reference values in awake and anaesthetized female sheep aged 6–12 months. Vet Anaesth Analg 44(3):518–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kang TY et al (2015) In vivo endothelization of tubular vascular grafts through in situ recruitment of endothelial and endothelial progenitor cells by RGD-fused mussel adhesive proteins. Biofabrication 7(1):015007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kapadia MR, Popowich DA, Kibbe MR (2008) Modified prosthetic vascular conduits. Circulation 117(14):1873–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Keough EM et al (1984) Healing pattern of small caliber dacron grafts in the baboon: an animal model for the study of vascular prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res 18(3):281–292MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kilkenny C et al (2010) Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 8(6):e1000412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Koens MJ et al (2015) Vascular replacement using a layered elastin-collagen vascular graft in a porcine model: one week patency versus one month occlusion. Organogenesis 11(3):105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kohler TR, Kirkman TR (1999) Dialysis access failure: a sheep model of rapid stenosis. J Vasc Surg 30(4):744–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Koobatian MT et al (2016) Successful endothelialization and remodeling of a cell-free small-diameter arterial graft in a large animal model. Biomaterials 76:344–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Krawiec JT et al (2016) In vivo functional evaluation of tissue-engineered vascular grafts fabricated using Human adipose-derived stem cells from high cardiovascular risk populations. Tissue Eng Part A 22(9–10):765–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Krawiec JT et al (2017) Evaluation of the stromal vascular fraction of adipose tissue as the basis for a stem cell-based tissue-engineered vascular graft. J Vasc Surg 66(3):883–890.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kumar VA et al (2013) Acellular vascular grafts generated from collagen and elastin analogs. Acta Biomater 9(9):8067–8074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kurobe H et al (2012) Concise review: tissue-engineered vascular grafts for cardiac surgery: past, present, and future. Stem Cells Transl Med 1(7):566–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kurobe H et al (2015) Development of small diameter nanofiber tissue engineered arterial grafts. PLoS One 10(4):e0120328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. L’Heureux N et al (1998) A completely biological tissue-engineered human blood vessel. FASEB J 12(1):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. L’Heureux N et al (2006) Human tissue-engineered blood vessels for adult arterial revascularization. Nat Med 12(3):361–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Li C, Hill A, Imran M (2005) In vitro and in vivo studies of ePTFE vascular grafts treated with P15 peptide. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 16(7):875–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Li S, Sengupta D, Chien S (2014) Vascular tissue engineering: from in vitro to in situ. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med 6(1):61–76Google Scholar
  82. Liao J, Huang W, Liu G (2015) Animal models of coronary heart disease. J Biomed Res 31(1):3–10 Google Scholar
  83. Lopes-Berkas VC, Jorgenson MA (2011) Measurement of peripheral arterial vasculature in domestic Yorkshire swine by using quantitative vascular angiography. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 50(5):628–634Google Scholar
  84. Lopez-Soler RI et al (2007) Development of a mouse model for evaluation of small diameter vascular grafts. J Surg Res 139(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ma X et al (2017) Development and in vivo validation of tissue-engineered, small-diameter vascular grafts from decellularized aortae of fetal pigs and canine vascular endothelial cells. J Cardiothorac Surg 12(1):101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Madhavan K et al (2018) Performance of marrow stromal cell-seeded small-caliber multilayered vascular graft in a senescent sheep model. Biomed Mater 13(5):055004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mahaney MC et al (2018) Diet-induced early-stage atherosclerosis in baboons: lipoproteins, atherogenesis, and arterial compliance. J Med Primatol 47(1):3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mangell P et al (1996) Regional differences in mechanical properties between major arteries–an experimental study in sheep. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 12(2):189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Matsumura G et al (2013) Long-term results of cell-free biodegradable scaffolds for in situ tissue engineering of pulmonary artery in a canine model. Biomaterials 34(27):6422–6428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Maurer KJ, Quimby FW (2015) Chapter 34 – animal models in biomedical research. In: Anderson LC, Fox JG, Otto GM, Pritchett-Corning KR, Whary MT (eds) Laboratory animal medicine, 3rd edn. Academic, pp 1497–1534 Google Scholar
  91. Maxfield MW et al (2017) Novel application and serial evaluation of tissue-engineered portal vein grafts in a murine model. Regen Med 12(8):929–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. McBane JE et al (2011) Biodegradation and in vivo biocompatibility of a degradable, polar/hydrophobic/ionic polyurethane for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 32(26): 6034–6044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. McIlhenny S et al (2015) eNOS transfection of adipose-derived stem cells yields bioactive nitric oxide production and improved results in vascular tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 9(11):1277–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Members ATF et al (2007) Public statement: guidelines for the assessment and management of pain in rodents and rabbits. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 46(2):97–108Google Scholar
  95. Mirensky TL et al (2009) Tissue-engineered arterial grafts: long-term results after implantation in a small animal model. J Pediatr Surg 44(6):1127–1132; discussion 1132–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Mocco J et al (2001) The baboon (Papio anubis) extracranial carotid artery: an anatomical guide for endovascular experimentation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 1:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Mrocki MM et al (2018) Moderate preterm birth affects right ventricular structure and function and pulmonary artery blood flow in adult sheep. J Physiol 596(23):5965–5975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mrowczynski W et al (2014) Porcine carotid artery replacement with biodegradable electrospun poly-e-caprolactone vascular prosthesis. J Vasc Surg 59(1):210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Müller M (2014) Evaluation der Blutgerinnung verschiedener Großtiermodelle und Vergleich des prokoagulatorischen Effektes der Hämostyptika QuikClot® Gauze™, Celox™ Gauze, QuikClot ACS+™ und H&H PriMed compressed gauze mit der Rotationsthromboelastometrie. Thesis, Medizinische Fakultät der Universität UlmGoogle Scholar
  100. Naito Y et al (2011) Vascular tissue engineering: towards the next generation vascular grafts. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 63(4–5):312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. National Research Council (2011) Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  102. Nieponice A et al (2010) In vivo assessment of a tissue-engineered vascular graft combining a biodegradable elastomeric scaffold and muscle-derived stem cells in a rat model. Tissue Eng Part A 16(4):1215–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Niklason LE et al (1999) Functional arteries grown in vitro. Science 284(5413):489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. OECD (1998) OECD Series on principles of good laboratory practice and compliance monitoring.
  105. Ong CS et al (2017) Bilateral arteriovenous shunts as a method for evaluating tissue-engineered vascular grafts in large animal models. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 23(11):728–735MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Onwuka E et al (2017) The role of myeloid cell-derived PDGF-B in neotissue formation in a tissue-engineered vascular graft. Regen Med 12(3):249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Patterson JT et al (2012) Tissue-engineered vascular grafts for use in the treatment of congenital heart disease: from the bench to the clinic and back again. Regen Med 7(3):409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Pektok E et al (2008) Degradation and healing characteristics of small-diameter poly(epsilon-caprolactone) vascular grafts in the rat systemic arterial circulation. Circulation 118(24): 2563–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Pennel T, Zilla P, Bezuidenhout D (2013) Differentiating transmural from transanastomotic prosthetic graft endothelialization through an isolation loop-graft model. J Vasc Surg 58(4): 1053–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Pennel T et al (2014) The performance of cross-linked acellular arterial scaffolds as vascular grafts; pre-clinical testing in direct and isolation loop circulatory models. Biomaterials 35(24): 6311–6322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Pepper VK et al (2017) Intravascular ultrasound characterization of a tissue-engineered vascular graft in an ovine model. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 10(2):128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Prather RS et al (2013) Genetically engineered pig models for human diseases. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 1:203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Prichard HL et al (2011) An early study on the mechanisms that allow tissue-engineered vascular grafts to resist intimal hyperplasia. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 4(5):674–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Quint C et al (2012) Allogeneic human tissue-engineered blood vessel. J Vasc Surg 55(3):790–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rehbinder C et al (2000) FELASA recommendations for the health monitoring of experimental units of calves, sheep and goats report of the federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) working group on animal health. Lab Anim 34(4):329–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Rocco KA et al (2014) In vivo applications of electrospun tissue-engineered vascular grafts: a review. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 20(6):628–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Roh JD et al (2008) Small-diameter biodegradable scaffolds for functional vascular tissue engineering in the mouse model. Biomaterials 29(10):1454–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Rotmans JI et al (2005) In vivo cell seeding with anti-CD34 antibodies successfully accelerates endothelialization but stimulates intimal hyperplasia in porcine arteriovenous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. Circulation 112(1):12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sanchez PF, Brey EM, Briceno JC (2018) Endothelialization mechanisms in vascular grafts. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 12(11):2164–2178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Sasaki T et al (2012) Maintenance dose of warfarin in sheep and effect of diet: a preliminary report. J Investig Surg 25(1):29–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Schneider KH et al (2018) Acellular vascular matrix grafts from human placenta chorion: impact of ECM preservation on graft characteristics, protein composition and in vivo performance. Biomaterials 177:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Schwartz RS et al (1992) Restenosis and the proportional neointimal response to coronary artery injury: results in a porcine model. J Am Coll Cardiol 19(2):267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Shinoka T et al (1996) Tissue-engineered heart valves. Autologous valve leaflet replacement study in a lamb model. Circulation 94(9 Suppl):II164–II168Google Scholar
  124. Shinoka T et al (1998) Creation of viable pulmonary artery autografts through tissue engineering. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 115(3):536–545; discussion 545–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Shum-Tim D et al (1999) Tissue engineering of autologous aorta using a new biodegradable polymer. Ann Thorac Surg 68(6):2298–2304; discussion 2305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Siller-Matula JM et al (2008) Interspecies differences in coagulation profile. Thromb Haemost 100(3):397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Snow HM et al (1994) The relationship between blood flow and diameter in the iliac artery of the anaesthetized dog: the role of endothelium-derived relaxing factor and shear stress. Exp Physiol 79(5):635–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Stacy MR et al (2014) Targeted imaging of matrix metalloproteinase activity in the evaluation of remodeling tissue-engineered vascular grafts implanted in a growing lamb model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 148(5):2227–2233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Stewart SF, Lyman DJ (2004) Effects of an artery/vascular graft compliance mismatch on protein transport: a numerical study. Ann Biomed Eng 32(7):991–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Swartz DD, Andreadis ST (2013) Animal models for vascular tissue-engineering. Curr Opin Biotechnol 24(5):916–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Swindle MM et al (2012) Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol 49(2):344–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Tellez A et al (2014) Experimental evaluation of efficacy and healing response of everolimus-eluting stents in the familial hypercholesterolemic swine model: a comparative study of bioabsorbable versus durable polymer stent platforms. Coron Artery Dis 25(3):198–207Google Scholar
  133. Tillman BW et al (2012) Bioengineered vascular access maintains structural integrity in response to arteriovenous flow and repeated needle puncture. J Vasc Surg 56(3):783–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Tsang HG et al (2016) Large animal models of cardiovascular disease. Cell Biochem Funct 34(3):113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tseng YC et al (2017) An in vivo study on endothelialized vascular grafts produced by autologous biotubes and adipose stem cells (ADSCs). J Mater Sci Mater Med 28(10):166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Ueberrueck T et al (2005) Comparison of the ovine and porcine animal models for biocompatibility testing of vascular prostheses. J Surg Res 124(2):305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Valence S et al (2013) Plasma treatment for improving cell biocompatibility of a biodegradable polymer scaffold for vascular graft applications. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 85(1):78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Wells SM, Langille BL, Adamson SL (1998) In vivo and in vitro mechanical properties of the sheep thoracic aorta in the perinatal period and adulthood. Am J Phys 274(5 Pt 2):H1749–H1760Google Scholar
  139. Wong ML et al (2016) In vivo xenogeneic scaffold fate is determined by residual antigenicity and extracellular matrix preservation. Biomaterials 92:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Wu W, Allen RA, Wang Y (2012) Fast-degrading elastomer enables rapid remodeling of a cell-free synthetic graft into a neoartery. Nat Med 18(7):1148–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Xiong Y et al (2013) Decellularized porcine saphenous artery for small-diameter tissue-engineered conduit graft. Artif Organs 37(6):E74–E87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Xu C et al (2016) Preclinical study of anticoagulation regimens in sheep after implantation of CH-VAD blood pump. Artif Organs 42(9):891–898. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Xu S et al (2017) Preparation and characterization of small-diameter decellularized scaffolds for vascular tissue engineering in an animal model. Biomed Eng Online 16(1):55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Yang D et al (2009) Tissue-engineered blood vessel graft produced by self-derived cells and allogenic acellular matrix: a functional performance and histologic study. Ann Plast Surg 62(3):297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Zakhartchenko V et al (2011) Cell-mediated transgenesis in rabbits: chimeric and nuclear transfer animals. Biol Reprod 84(2):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Zaragoza C et al (2011) Animal models of cardiovascular diseases. J Biomed Biotechnol 2011:497841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Zhang J et al (2017) In vivo biocompatibility and hemocompatibility of a polytetrafluoroethylene small diameter vascular graft modified with sulfonated silk fibroin. Am J Surg 213(1):87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Zhao J et al (2012) A novel strategy to engineer small-diameter vascular grafts from marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Artif Organs 36(1):93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Zheng W et al (2012) Endothelialization and patency of RGD-functionalized vascular grafts in a rabbit carotid artery model. Biomaterials 33(10):2880–2891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Zhou F et al (2016) Nanofiber-mediated microRNA-126 delivery to vascular endothelial cells for blood vessel regeneration. Acta Biomater 43:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Zhu M et al (2015) Circumferentially aligned fibers guided functional neoartery regeneration in vivo. Biomaterials 61:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Zilla P, Bezuidenhout D, Human P (2007) Prosthetic vascular grafts: wrong models, wrong questions and no healing. Biomaterials 28(34):5009–5027CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Biomedical ResearchMedical University ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Cardiovascular ResearchViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations