Are you Patrick Feugier?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)10.33 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This work concerned the endothelialization of vascular prostheses and subsequent improvement of functionality with respect to tissue engineering. The aim of the study was to investigate the initial, pre-shear stress cellular behavior with respect to three vascular biomaterials to explain subsequent cellular responses to physiological shear stresses. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), polyethyleneterephthalate (polyester; Dacron; PET), and electrostatically spun polyurethane (PU) (all pre-impregnated with collagen I/III) were cell-seeded with L929 immortalized murine fibroblasts or human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). Cytoskeletal involvement, cell height profiles, and immunohistochemistry were examined after 7 d static culture. All three vascular biomaterials demonstrated different structures. Cell behavior varied both between the materials and the two cell types: cytoskeletal involvement was greater for the HUVECs and the more fibrous surfaces; height profiles were greater for the L929 and PET, and lowest on PU. Immunohistochemistry of HUVEC samples also showed differences: PU revealed the greatest expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and E-selectin (PET and ePTFE the lowest, respectively); ePTFE produced the greatest for vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (PET the lowest). Material substrate influenced the cellular response. Cells demonstrating firm adhesion increased their cytoskeletal processes and expression of cell-substratum and inter-cellular adhesion markers, which may explain their ability to adapt more readily to shear stress. The fibrous PU structure appeared to be most suited to further shear stress exposure. This study demonstrated the potential of the underlying vascular material to affect the long-term cellular functionality of the prosthesis.
    Journal of Surgical Research 10/2007; 149(1):39-46. · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • Tissue Engineering. 01/2007; 13(7):1726-1726.
  • P Feugier, R A Black, J A Hunt, T V How
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In an effort to improve the long-term patency of vascular prostheses several groups now advocate seeding autologous endothelial cells (ECs) onto the lumen of the vessel prior to implantation, a procedure that involves pre-treating the prosthesis material with fibrin, collagen and/or other matrix molecules to promote cell attachment and retention. In this study, we examined the degree to which human umbilical venous endothelial cells (HUVECs) adhered to three materials commonly used polymeric vascular prosthesis that had been coated with the same commercial extra cellular matrix proteins, and after exposure to fluid shear stresses representative of femoro-distal bypass in a cone-and-plate shearing device. We quantified cell number, area of coverage and degree of cell spreading using image analysis techniques. The response of cells that adhered to the surface of each material, and following exposure to fluid shear stress, depended on surface treatment, topology and cell type. Whereas collagen coating improved primary cellular adhesion and coverage significantly, the degree of spreading depended on the underlying surface structure and on the application of the shear stress. In some cases, fewer than 30% of cells remained on the surface after only 1-h exposure to physiological levels of shear stress. The proportion of the surface that was covered by cells also decreased, despite an increase in the degree to which individual cells spread on exposure to shear stress. Moreover, the behaviour of HUVECs was distinct from that of fibroblasts, in that the human ECs were able to adapt to their environment by spreading to a much greater extent in response to shear. The quality of HUVEC attachment, as measured by extent of cell coverage and resistance to fluid shear stress, was greatest on expanded polytetrafluoroethylene samples that had been impregnated with Type I/III collagen.
    Biomaterials 06/2005; 26(13):1457-66. · 8.31 Impact Factor