journal article·2026-06Open access

Strut Thickness and Species‐Specific Healing Are Key Considerations in Developing Zinc‐Based Biodegradable Arterial Stents

Lea M. Morath, Shebeer A. Rahim, Cole A. Baker, Shobana Santhanam, Deirdre E. J. Anderson, Alex M. LaMere, Lindy G. Oujiri, Greet Kerckhofs, Grzegorz Pyka, Monica T. Hinds, Shu Q. Liu, Jaroslaw W. Drelich, Jeremy Goldman

Abstract

ABSTRACT Zinc‐based biodegradable stents offer a promising solution for temporary vascular support, aiding in vessel healing while reducing long‐term complications such as thrombosis and restenosis. This study examined three zinc‐based alloys: AMZ (Zn–4.0Ag–0.6Mn–0.1Zr), ACMZ (Zn–3.5Ag–0.5Cu–0.7Mn–0.1Zr), and CMM (Zn–1.0Cu–0.6Mn–0.05 Mg), all featuring reduced wire diameters of 0.12 mm. The focus was on their microstructure, mechanical performance, thrombogenicity, and in vivo biocompatibility. The alloys were processed through cold drawing and heat treatment, resulting in ultra‐fine‐grained structures measuring less than 1 μm. Energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) and x‐ray diffraction (XRD) analyses confirmed the presence of strengthening intermetallic phases (AgZn 3 , CuZn 4 , and MnZn 13 ), while a uniform elemental distribution indicated solid solution strengthening. Heat treatment enhanced ductility, especially in the AMZ and ACMZ alloys, without compromising tensile strength. In vitro hemocompatibility assays showed low thrombogenicity for these alloys, with lower fibrin and FXIIa generation compared to clinical control materials. Ex vivo assessments of platelet and fibrin attachment revealed similar results to those observed with pure zinc controls. In vivo implantation of the stent materials into the abdominal aortas of mice and rats produced distinct species‐specific immune responses. Mice exhibited significant inflammation, extracellular matrix degradation, and necrosis, raising potential concerns about their biocompatibility in this model. In contrast, implants in rats resulted in only mild inflammation and limited neointimal growth, with no signs of necrosis. This suggests a more favorable and controlled healing response in rats. Morphometric analysis of Verhoeff–Van Gieson‐stained cross‐sections indicated that the 0.12 mm wires produced significantly less neointimal growth compared to previously tested 0.25 mm implants in rats, highlighting the advantages of smaller implant dimensions. Overall, these findings support the use of refined zinc‐based alloys with smaller struts for next‐generation biodegradable stents. However, the inflammatory response observed in mice emphasizes the necessity for careful selection of models in preclinical testing.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Magnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications · Shape Memory Alloy Transformations · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Biomedical Engineering Michigan Technological University Houghton Michigan USA

Department of Materials Science and Engineering Michigan Technological University Houghton Michigan USA

Department of Mechanical Engineering TKM College of Engineering Kollam Kerala India

Department of Biomedical Engineering Oregon Health and Science University Portland Oregon USA

Department of Materials Engineering KU Leuven Heverlee Belgium

Biomechanics Lab Institute of Mechanics, Materials and Civil Engineering, UCLouvain Louvain‐la‐Neuve Belgium

Pole of Morphology Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, UCLouvain Brussels Belgium

Prometheus, Division for Skeletal Tissue Engineering KULeuven Leuven Belgium

Department of Biomedical Engineering Northwestern University Evanston Illinois USA

Funding

Oregon National Primate Research Center

References (43)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.03.05810.1016/j.actbio.2021.03.058 ↗
2. 10.1002/adhm.20150101910.1002/adhm.201501019 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.10036810.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100368 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.msec.2015.07.02210.1016/j.msec.2015.07.022 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.11964110.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119641 ↗
6. 10.1002/jbm.b.3427410.1002/jbm.b.34274 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11082610.1016/j.msec.2020.110826 ↗
8. 10.1007/s11837-019-03371-510.1007/s11837-019-03371-5 ↗
9. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b0003510.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00035 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.bioadv.2024.21411210.1016/j.bioadv.2024.214112 ↗
11. 10.1002/adma.20230107410.1002/adma.202301074 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.11.02210.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.11.022 ↗
13. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c0171410.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01714 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.03.04710.1016/j.actbio.2022.03.047 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.matchar.2022.11192810.1016/j.matchar.2022.111928 ↗
16. Microstructure, Mechanical Properties and Fracture Behavior of As‐Extruded Zn–Mg Binary Alloys
17. 10.1016/j.msea.2025.14834710.1016/j.msea.2025.148347 ↗
18. 10.1021/acsabm.0c0074010.1021/acsabm.0c00740 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.mtla.2024.10217410.1016/j.mtla.2024.102174 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.01.02810.1016/j.actbio.2020.01.028 ↗
21. 10.3390/jpm1305075310.3390/jpm13050753 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.05.00210.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.05.002 ↗
23. 10.1007/s10439-010-0016-410.1007/s10439-010-0016-4 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.11.00510.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.11.005 ↗
25. 10.1007/s43452-021-00311-610.1007/s43452-021-00311-6 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.07.04910.1016/j.actbio.2022.07.049 ↗
27. Damage Prediction in the Wire Drawing Process
28. 10.1016/S0924-0136(99)00461-610.1016/S0924-0136(99)00461-6 ↗
29. 10.2353/ajpath.2009.08096210.2353/ajpath.2009.080962 ↗
30. 10.3390/cells1007179410.3390/cells10071794 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.00410.1016/j.smim.2007.11.004 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.16710.1016/j.msec.2017.02.167 ↗
33. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b0059110.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00591 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.08.02210.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.08.022 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.08.01210.1016/j.actbio.2019.08.012 ↗
36. 10.1002/jbm.a.3130210.1002/jbm.a.31302 ↗
37. 10.1088/1748-605X/ac557410.1088/1748-605X/ac5574 ↗
38. 10.1002/ccd.2822810.1002/ccd.28228 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.05.02410.1016/j.ijcard.2022.05.024 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.07.04010.1016/j.amjcard.2018.07.040 ↗
41. 10.1007/s10439-009-9719-910.1007/s10439-009-9719-9 ↗
42. 10.1007/s10439-015-1387-310.1007/s10439-015-1387-3 ↗
43. 10.1186/1475-925X-8-810.1186/1475-925X-8-8 ↗