Shear‐Responsive Drug Delivery Systems in Medical Devices: Focus on Thrombosis and Bleeding

Saeedreza Zeibi Shirejini; Josie Carberry; Karen Alt; Shaun D Gregory; Christoph E Hagemeyer

doi:10.1002/adfm.202303717

Shear‐Responsive Drug Delivery Systems in Medical Devices: Focus on Thrombosis and Bleeding

Zeibi Shirejini, Saeedreza; Carberry, Josie; Alt, Karen; Gregory, Shaun D; Hagemeyer, Christoph E 2023-09-01 00:00:00 IntroductionBlood‐contacting medical devices including stents, catheters, heart valves, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, such as left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) have been widely used to treat various diseases (Figure 1).[1] Blood‐contacting devices have varying durations of use, with different devices used for varying amounts of time. Typically, dialysis and CPB circuits are used for only a few hours, whereas ECMO and catheters are used for several weeks to months.[2] In contrast, stents and heart valves are intended to remain in place for many years, and typically for the duration of a person's life. The duration of LVAD implantation varies from a few weeks to several years, depending on whether the device is intended to serve as a bridge to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy. Regardless of the device's characteristics or length of use, it is inevitable that a foreign surface will meet the blood and high shear stress in those devices due to the high local blood velocity and narrowed blood flow area, potentially leading to the formation of thrombosis or immune responses. One of the major complications and a common cause of death for medical devices is thrombosis complications, such as ischemic stroke, right ventricular thrombus,[3] left ventricular thrombus,[4] pulmonary embolism [5] and bleeding.[6] In particular, it has been reported that the bleeding rate during ECMO is 20.8%–39.6% [6b,7] with the cannula site (13.2%), gastrointestinal tract (5.5%), lungs (6.1%), and central nervous system (3.9%) being the most prevalent sites,[8] while thrombosis formation occurs in 10%–46.1% of patients depending on the circuit type and age of the patient in various centers.[9] Antithrombotic agents are commonly used to prevent thrombosis in blood‐contacting medical devices. However, the administration of these agents can lead to a systematic anticoagulant effect in the patient, thereby increasing bleeding complications. Therefore, additional techniques required to prevent thrombosis formation in medical devices without increasing the risk of bleeding complications.1FigureExamples of medical devices. A) Angioplasty stent. B) Central venous catheter. C) Heart valve. D) LVAD. E) and F) membrane oxygenator and centrifugal pump, respectively, as the main components of ECMO and CPB. Figure created with BioRender.com.Shear‐responsive liposomes are a type of nanomedicine designed to respond to variations in shear stress. Liposomes are lenticular or spherical structures composed of phospholipids bilayer that can encapsulate drugs and other compounds. Conventional liposomes are relatively stable under shear stresses in normal physiological blood flow conditions. However, when exposed to high levels of shear stress, such as those found in medical devices, conventional liposomes can rupture and lose their contents. Importantly, this process occurs in an uncontrolled manner, rendering it challenging to manage. Shear‐responsive liposomes, on the other hand, are made from a combination of lipids and polymers that are chosen to give the liposomes specific mechanical properties that allow them to respond to specific levels of shear stress in a more controlled and targeted manner.[10] This makes them more flexible and resistant to high shear stress, and also allows them to release their contents in response to changes in shear stress at a certain threshold. Shear‐responsive liposomes have been proposed as a promising solution to prevent thrombosis in medical devices. These liposomes burst and release an antithrombotic agent at the site of high shear stress, decreasing the drug dosage required to prevent thrombosis and bleeding while increasing the drug's circulation time inside the body.[11]This article will focus on the potential application of shear‐responsive nanomedicines to prevent thrombosis and reduce the bleeding complications in medical devices. To have a better understanding of the influence of the shear stress on thrombosis formation, the mechanism of platelet activation and thrombosis formation under shear stress is thoroughly discussed. Then, we explore the potential of shear‐responsive liposomes in preventing thrombosis and bleeding in medical devices. The article will review the current literature on the use of shear‐responsive liposomes and discuss their advantages and limitations. Additionally, we will discuss the current challenges and future directions for improving the stability of the shear‐responsive liposomes in medical devices and their potential applications in clinical settings. In particular, Figure 2 depicts the use of shear sensitive nanoparticles in the context of ECMO to illustrate the practical application of shear‐responsive nanoparticles.2FigureIllustration of nanoparticle rupturing in ECMO setup. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is a temporary support system for critically ill patients. The ECMO circuit comprises a blood pump, an oxygenator, tubing set, and two cannulas. The blood is propelled through the tubing set and the oxygenator, where it undergoes gas exchange to remove carbon dioxide and add oxygen. The ECMO pump generates the necessary blood flow to maintain perfusion and support vital organ function, while various monitoring devices track patient hemodynamic and oxygenation. Figure created with BioRender.com.Biomaterial and Shear Stress‐Induced ThrombosisAccording to Virchow's triad, thrombosis is triggered by a variety of factors, including hypercoagulability, medical device materials, and hemodynamic parameters (high shear stress/high residence time.[12] Non‐biocompatible circuit surfaces, such as those made from synthetic materials, can trigger an immune response and promote platelet adhesion, aggregation, and ultimately thrombosis formation.[13] In addition, high shear stress and intensive blood flow regions, and prolonged blood contact time with medical devices, especially those in MCS, further contribute to these complications. These thrombi can obstruct blood flow across the circuit and harm blood vessels and organs. Thrombosis can form in the medical devices and embolize to other parts of the body, such as the lungs or brain, resulting in serious complications including stroke and pulmonary embolism, as well as organ damage.[14]Biomaterial thrombosis is the process by which a thrombus forms on the surface of a biomaterial, such as a medical device component surface (Figure 3).[15] This phenomenon can occur due to the foreign body effect of the biomaterial and the activation of the haemostatic pathways, including platelet activation, coagulation activation, and the immune response.[16] The interactions between these pathways and the biomaterial surface are influenced by various factors, including the presence of plasma proteins, such as fibrinogen, high molecular weight kininogen (HMWK), Pre‐kallikrein (PK), Factor XII (FXII), complement proteins, von Willebrand factor (vWF), immunoglobulins, and tissue factor (TF).[17] The surface of the biomaterial activates platelets, leading to the initial adhesion of platelets to the biomaterial surface. This process is mediated by the exposure of vWF and other adhesive molecules, such as collagen and glycoprotein VI (GPVI), on biomaterial surface.[18] Platelet activation triggers the release of platelet granules, including adenosine diphosphate (ADP), which further stimulates platelet activation and aggregation. The activation of platelets and the exposure of vWF on the biomaterial surface also initiates the coagulation cascade, leading to the formation of a fibrin mesh that provides structural support for the blood clot. This process is mediated by the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin, which in turn cleaves fibrinogen to form fibrin.[19] The activation of platelets and the presence of a foreign body also triggers an inflammatory response, which contributes to thrombosis by promoting the adhesion and activation of leukocytes, which release cytokines and other proinflammatory molecules.[20] Platelets continue to aggregate and accumulate on the biomaterial surface, strengthening the blood clot. This process is mediated by the binding of fibrin to the platelets, which functions as a bridge between the platelets and the biomaterial surface. The accumulation of platelets and fibrin on the biomaterial surface forms a thrombus.[21]3FigureDiagram illustrating interplay between platelet activation and coagulation cascade. The image on the left depicts the coagulation cascade, which includes the contact (intrinsic) and tissue factor (extrinsic) pathways that lead to the common pathway that results in thrombosis. The diagram on the right depicts the activation of platelets and their interaction with the coagulation cascade to form thrombosis. TXA2: Thromboxane A2; ADP: Adenosine diphosphate; GPVI: Glycoprotein VI; GPIb‐IX‐V: Glycoprotein GPIb‐IX‐V; VWF: Von Willebrand factor; TF: Tissue factor. Figure created with BioRender.com.Platelet function can be greatly affected by fluid dynamics in medical devices. Shear stress is defined as the force per unit area between layers of materials in contact, and has been identified as the main mechanical force that determines platelet‐mediated haemostasis and thrombosis.[22] Shear stress is typically measured in units of pascals (Pa) or dynes per square centimeter (dyn/cm2). Shear rate, on the other hand, refers to the rate at which adjacent layers of fluid are moving relative to each other. In other words, Shear rate refers to the velocity gradient of a fluid as it moves along a surface and describes how fast the fluid is flowing. Shear rate is typically measured in units of reciprocal seconds (s−1). Activation of platelets by high shears and the artificial surface of the medical devices have been proposed as the main causes of coagulopathy in patients.[23] Hence, it is vital to understand the function of platelets as the main cause of coagulopathy in patients with medical devices. This is because the interactions between platelet receptors and ligands, such as fibrinogen and vWF, are highly shear‐dependent.[24]VWF is a protein that is involved in blood coagulation and plays an important role in the formation of blood clots. Under high shear rates, the mechanical force of the flowing blood causes vWF to undergo conformational changes, which alter its shape and structure. These changes result in the elongation of vWF, exposing the A1 domain. The A1 domain is the site where vWF binds to the platelet glycoprotein receptor Ib (GPIb). This binding allows the platelets to adhere to the blood vessel wall and initiate the formation of a clot. The exposure of the A1 domain and the subsequent binding of vWF to the platelets under high shear rates can increase the risk of thrombosis. This can lead to the occlusion of the blood vessels and medical devices and the subsequent formation of a thrombus. Moreover, under high shear stress conditions, the mechanical force of the flowing blood can cause erythrocytes to deform and become more elongated in shape. This deformation can cause the erythrocytes to become more adhesive, which can increase the risk of thrombosis. Low shear stress can cause the erythrocytes to aggregate and form rouleaux,[25] which increases the blood viscosity and consequently the shear stress that blood experiencing while under high shear stress these aggregates disintegrate and red blood cells (RBCs) may change shape to align with the flow direction, resulting in a reduction in viscosity via a process known as shear thinning.[26] In addition, the deformation of erythrocytes under high shear stress can cause them to release haemoglobin, which can interact with other blood components and contribute to the clot formation.[27]Conventional Methods for Preventing Thrombosis and Bleeding in Medical DevicesHealthcare providers use different strategies to manage the risk of thrombosis and bleeding complications in medical devices, depending on the patient's condition. While heparin is the most used anticoagulant for patients using medical devices, it is associated with serious adverse problems including Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and heparin resistance. Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia can lead to the formation of blood clots, which can be dangerous and even life‐threatening if they occur in the lungs, heart, or brain.[28] Heparin resistance is a term used to describe the condition in which a patient does not respond to therapeutic levels of heparin.[29] HIT and heparin resistance can be managed by using alternative anticoagulants, such as argatroban [28] or bivalirudin [30] but they can also show anticoagulant resistance requiring dose escalation. Factor XII inhibitors are promising anticoagulant agents that are currently under investigation in animal models, yet further approvals are required for their applications in human.[31] Moreover, utilizing low‐dosage anticoagulation is another strategy that has been used in clinical settings to reduce bleeding problems while thrombosis formation is still a concern.[32] Additionally, the concept of an anticoagulant‐free method, which involves coating the medical devices with biocompatible substances to prevent blood clotting, is being researched as an alternative, however it's still under investigation and not yet widely available or proven to be as safe and effective as traditional anticoagulation methods in medical devices and may not be appropriate for all patient populations.[33]Novel Shear‐Responsive Drug Delivery SystemsDespite the existence of various methods aimed at reducing thrombosis and bleeding complications in medical devices, there is still a need for more effective ways to lower the incidence of these issues. The use of shear‐responsive drug delivery systems has the potential to improve the efficiency and specificity of drug delivery, as the release of the drug can be precisely controlled in response to changes in shear stress.[34] Shear‐responsive drug delivery systems refer to a class of drug delivery systems that are designed to respond to shear stress gradient, which is the force exerted on a fluid as it flows through a surface, such as blood flowing through a vessel or the blood flow within the medical devices. These systems are typically made up of a carrier, such as a nanoparticle or micelle, that contains the drug, and a shear‐responsive coating or shell that surrounds the carrier. When these systems are introduced into a flowing liquid, such as blood, the shear stress on the coating or shell causes it to change its properties, such as its shape or surface charge, which in turn affects the release of the drug from the carrier.[35]Shear‐responsive drug delivery systems rely on the reversible material deformation or disaggregation to elicit drug release.[36] In cardiovascular systems, shear stress is generated by the blood flow as it moves through the blood vessels. The range of shear stress in cardiovascular systems can vary depending on the location and size of the blood vessel, as well as the velocity and viscosity of the blood flow. Moreover, occlusion of the vessels due to cardiovascular diseases such as atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and embolism will induce higher shear stress to the flowing blood [37] providing the opportunity of localized vasodilators [38] and antithrombotic [39] drug delivery.[40] In particular, atherosclerosis is a common vascular disease that increases the risk of thrombosis by inducing shear stress at plaques.[41] Shear‐responsive nanoparticles are a promising therapeutic approach for the treatment of atherosclerosis; however, the heterogeneity of lesions poses a significant challenge for the design of effective therapies, as various types of lesions can exist in the same patient under varying levels of shear stress.[42] To overcome this challenge, shear‐responsive liposomes can be designed to target various types of lesions with varying shear stress levels. Alternately, nanoparticles may be functionalized with antibodies or other ligands that selectively bind to specific cell types or molecular markers associated with various types of lesions, thereby facilitating the targeted delivery of therapeutic agents to regions of high shear stress or specific lesion types.The shear stress threshold differs among pathological environments and medical devices. In the arterial system, the shear stress is relatively high due to the high blood flow and the relatively small diameter of the vessels (10–20 dyn cm−2). The peak shear stress occurs near the vessel wall, where the blood is moving at its fastest, and decreases as the distance from the wall increases. In contrast, the venous system has lower blood flow and larger diameter vessels, resulting in lower shear stress (1–6 dyn cm−2).[43] Shear stress inside healthy vasculature ranges from 0.1 to 7 pa (1‐− 70 dyn cm−2 [44] whereas it is in the range of 150–1000 dyn cm2 in constricted coronary arteries.[45] In MCS, the shear stress range is typically 1000 to 6000 dyn cm−2 depending on the blood flow rate that varies in neonates and adult patients.[46] The typical range of shear stress in pathological conditions and medical devices presented in Table 1.1TableTypical blood flow properties of blood‐contacting medical devices and human anatomyWall shear stress [dyn cm−2]Wall shear strain rate [s−1]Ref.Physiological/pathological situationStenotic vessels30–3501000–10 000[47]Coronary artery10–55300–1500[48]Aortic valve3–30100–1000[49]Venules1–4020–1500[50]Medical devicesECMO3000–400080 000–120 000[46a,51]LVAD4000–6000120 000–150 000[52]Prosthetic heart valve160–20005000–60 000[53]Coronary stent20–100600–3000[50a,54]There are several types of shear‐responsive nanocarriers including nanogels,[55] polymeric nanoparticles,[56] inorganic nanoparticles,[57] and liposomes.[58] Among those, liposomes are widely used in targeted drug delivery, gene therapy, and vaccine development due to their ease of preparation, biocompatibility and biodegradability.[59] Shear‐responsive liposomes are small, spherical structures composed of a phospholipid bilayer that mimic the structure of cells and encapsulate a hydrophilic core. Liposomes are one of the most used nanocarriers for the encapsulation of thrombolytic drugs and other medicines. By encapsulating drugs, liposomes can protect them from enzymatic degradation and increase their half‐life, resulting in improved selectivity and targeted delivery to the site of thrombus. Consequently, the use of nanocarriers can boost the efficacy of antithrombotic drugs such as antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and thrombolytics.[60]Typically, there are two different methods introduced for delivering antithrombotic agents including nanoparticles deformation [58] and nanoparticle disaggregation (Figure 4).[39] The first technique employs lipid nanoparticles, which can release their content drugs in response to various shear stresses, while in second method, shear stress can shatter the micron‐sized nanoparticle aggregates, allowing the released nanoparticles to stick to the surface of injury. To minimize the contact surface between water and the hydrophobic area of the liposomes, they normally create spherical shapes with a specific range of shear sensitivity, so that their membrane disrupts in shear ranges greater than 400 dyn cm−2.[36b] This is ideal for usage in medical devices since the shear stress in medical devices exceeds this range. However, since shear stress inside the body is less than this level, this could limit their use in in vivo experiments without medical devices. In this situation, non‐spherical (lentil) particles can be used to modify the shear sensitivity of liposomes so that their membrane can be disrupted and the drug within them can be released under a wide range of shear stress, therefore resolving the problem.[38,61] Table 2 summarizes the shear stress range and test exposure time, payload, carrier composition and size, and the type of experimental methods of different shear‐responsive liposomal drug delivery systems.4FigureNanoparticle drug carriers for thrombosis prevention and the mechanism of action of targeted liposomes (left A‐E). Demonstration of nanoparticles dissociation under high shear stress region (right). The graph on the right depicts how nanoparticles dissociate in regions of high shear stress. Micron‐sized nanoparticle aggregates dissociate and release antithrombotic drug‐encapsulated or coated nanoparticles in areas of high shear stress, such as narrowed blood vessels or components in medical devices (e.g., stent, pump, membrane oxygenator, and cannula) (right top). Targeted drug‐loaded nanoparticles can deliver the drug to high shear stress zones where thrombosis forms and release the drug based on the drug release efficiency of nanoparticles (right bottom). Figure created with BioRender.com.2TableExamples of shear‐responsive nanomedicine drug delivery systemsType of drug carrierShear stress/shear rateTest exposure timePayloadCarrier compositionCarrier sizeExperimental setupRef.Nanoparticles2–40 Pa40 passes5(6)‐carboxyfluorescein and rhodamine DOPE (rho‐DOPE)EggPC, Pad–PC–Pad, DPPC100 nmIn vitro (extracorporeal pump flow setup)[36b]1500 s−14 hDoxorubicin (DOX), irinotecan, vincristineComposition1: HSPC, Cholesterol, mPEG2000‐DSPE; Composition2: DSPC, Cholesterol, mPEG2000‐DSPE; Composition3: Egg SM and cholesterol150 nmIn vivo (mice model)[62]0–10000 s−120 min under shearWater‐soluble solutionsEPC and Brij 7650–400 nmIn vitro (Couette viscometer)[61]75012 min5(6)‐carboxyfluoresceinDOPC and DOPC/DSPC‐PEG130–140 nmIn vitro (Cone‐and‐plate viscometer)[58]0–40000 s−110 passes5(6)‐carboxyfluorescein and eptifibatideEPC and Brij 76200 nmIn vivo (ice model) and In vitro (microfluidics)[63]10 Pa24–48 hheparinthiolated poly‐L‐lysine (PLL)160–230 nm NP on RBCIn vivo (mice model)[64]1–150 Pa2 minDoxorubicin (DOX)N‐(carbonylmethoxypolyethylene glycol 2000)‐1,2‐distearoyl‐sn‐glycero3‐phosphoethanolamine sodium salt (MPEG‐DSPE), hydrogenated soy phosphatidylcholine (HSPC), and cholesterol100−150 nmIn vitro (Cone‐and‐plate viscometer)[35]7800 s−10–180 min5(6)‐carboxyfluoresceinPOPC, POPG and cholesterol149 nmIn vitro (microtubes and peristaltic pump)[65]Nanoparticle aggregates>10 Pa3 passesCoated with rtPAPLGA4 µm (aggregates) and 200 nm of NPIn vivo (rabbitcarotid artery occlusion model)[34]100 000 s−1 (100 Pa)1–10 minsCoated with tPAPLGA3.8 µm (aggregates) and 180 nm of NPIn vivo (mice model) and In vitro (rheometer and microfluidics)[39]Shear‐Responsive Nanoparticle DeformationShear‐responsive nanoparticle deformation is the alteration of the shape and structure of nanoparticles in response to shear forces, and it is being investigated as a potential method of controlling drug release in response to variations in blood flow. Holme et al. [36b] classified nanoparticles based on their drug release properties, with natural phospholipids in liquid state, such as EggPC (EPC) being leaky under static condition and shear stress, while natural vesicles in the gel state including Dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) and N‐palmitoyl‐D‐erythro‐sphingosyl‐phosphorylcholine (16:0 SM) do not release their cargo in either static or shear‐induced circumstances. They synthesized Pad–PC–Pad, a lenticular artificial phospholipid that is stable under static conditions but releases cargo (5(6)‐carboxyfluorescein) at elevated shear stress. It is also stated that lenticular shape of the liposomes is responsible for their sensitivity to shear stress that results in favored breaking points along the equator inside the body or external high shear stress areas. They also utilized an extracorporeal circulation pump to investigate the effect of the number of passes on the drug release properties of nanoparticles exposed to shear stress. They found that Pad–PC–Pad nanoparticles were shear sensitive and released their content under high shear stress conditions due to shear‐induced transient pore formation. There was a clear distinction in drug release between healthy and constricted models using Pad–PC–Pad, while no significant difference was observed in dye‐loaded EPC nanoparticles.Further investigations were conducted to explore the impact of shear rate, surfactant‐to‐lipid molar ratio, lipid composition, and PEGylation of liposomes on the shear‐induced leakage and fusion of lipid nanoparticles. The researchers developed a method to control membrane permeability and morphology of unilamellar lipid vesicles with varying sizes under shear stress using nonionic surfactant (Brij 76).[61] They investigated the effect of vesicle size (50–400 nm), shear rate, and surfactant‐to‐lipid molar ratio on shear‐induced leakage and fusion of lipid nanoparticles. Their findings demonstrate that introducing a small amount of detergent in EPC suspension induces leakage of hydrophilic species through the membrane in a dose‐dependent manner, while no significant leakage is observed without detergent. Increasing the shear rate up to a threshold level enhances the leakage rate, due to the higher collision frequency between vesicles and increased Brij 76 concentration at vesicle poles. Furthermore, they utilized a Couette viscometer to expose the lipid vesicles to shearing for 20 min under various shear rates (0–10000 s−1). They observed that smaller unilamellar vesicles are less sensitive to shear stress than larger ones, and that leakage gradually increases with shearing time as demonstrated by UV absorbance results. In another study, Fujie and Yoshimoto examined the release rate of 5(6)‐carboxyfluorescein dye from PEGylated liposomes using two different liposome compositions.[55] The impact of shear stress on PEGylated liposomes was studied using a cone‐and‐plate viscometer. The results indicate that dye release rises with time, peaks after 3 min, and then remains constant at a shear rate of 750 s−1. PEGylation increases dye release from liposomes, as compared to non‐PEGylated DOPC nanoparticles.Natsume and Yoshimoto highly synthesized shear‐responsive liposome nanoparticles with lipid membrane composed of 1‐Palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine (POPC), 1‐palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphoglycerol (POPG) and cholesterol (in a molar ratio of 50:20:30). Glucose oxidase (GO) and catalase were loaded into the liposomes to initiate the catalytic oxidation of glucose and evaluate the shear sensitivity of the nanoparticles. To determine the enzyme activity, GO and catalase encapsulated liposomes were introduced into a glucose solution. Laminar shear flow was generated at relatively high shear rates (≈7800 s−1) using microtubes with inner diameters of 190 and 380 µm equipped with a peristaltic pump (Figure 5A). The results revealed that the encapsulated liposomes were monodispersed (polydispersity index (PI) = 0.062) with a mean diameter of 150 nm (Figure 5B). In static conditions, liposomal GO had low reactivity due to the significant penetration resistance of lipid membranes to substrate molecules. However, the glucose conversion rate increased with time (0–180 min) and shear rate (0–7800 s−1) (Figure 5C), which demonstrated the shear sensitivity of the liposomal GO.[65]5FigureA) The schematic diagram depicting the reactor system comprising a quartz cuvette housing containing liposomes encapsulating GO and catalase, and an external liquid circulation system with four parallel microtubes. The illustration depicts the distribution of liquid velocity (u) and shear rate (γ) within the microtubes. B) This figure demonstrates the effect of shearing on the size distribution of liposomes with an initial diameter of 150 nm. The experiment was carried out at a temperature of 25 °C and a shear rate of 7800 s−1 for a duration of 1000 s. C) Shows the fractional conversion of glucose over time for the liposomal GO‐catalase system at various average shear rates, compared to a micellar enzyme system. Reproduced with permission.[65] Copyright 2014, ACS Publications.Chen et al. have developed a drug delivery system based on nanobowls, which are nanoparticles characterized by a bowl‐like shape, with a hollow center and an outer liposomal shell. These nanobowls can be loaded with drugs and then released in a controlled manner to target cells or tissues in the body. The incorporation of nanobowls in the water cavity of the liposome structure improves the stability of liposomes in the blood circulation, preventing drug leakage induced by plasma proteins and blood flow shear stress. This will result in enhanced drug delivery to tumor sites (Figure 6A). In comparison to conventional liposomes, it has been demonstrated that adopting Doxorubicin (DOX)‐loaded nanobowl liposomes improves encapsulation efficiency and reduces drug leakage (Figure 6B). Moreover, in vivo experiments in mice models have shown that the half‐life of DOX‐loaded nanobowl liposomes is 19.4 h, which is significantly longer than that of free DOX (1.3 h) and DOX‐loaded liposomes (14.1 h). The shorter half‐life of DOX‐loaded liposomes is attributed to the considerable drug leakage in the circulation (Figure 6C). Ex vivo results further illustrate that DOX leakage from liposomes gradually increases after exposure to shear rate of 1500 s−1 for 4 h in serum, whereas there is no significant difference in drug leakage in the nanobowl‐liposome formulation after 4 h of exposure to shear stress. This indicates the superior stability of nanobowl‐liposomes in the blood circulation.[62]6FigureThe potential of nanobowls in improving the efficacy of drug delivery to tumor sites. A) The role of nanobowl‐liposomes in preventing drug leakage caused by plasma proteins and blood flow shear stress, leading to enhanced drug delivery to tumor sites. B) A graph presenting the reduced leakage of drug‐loaded nanobowl‐liposomes compared to drug‐loaded liposomes under exposure to serum and shear stress. C) The blood clearance and tumor targeting of nanobowl‐liposomes loaded with a fluorescent dye and a chemotherapy drug. The panel shows the results of in vivo and ex vivo imaging of the tumor site over time after injection of the liposomes. D) The encapsulation efficiency of DOX‐loaded liposomes and nanobowl‐liposomes at different drug‐to‐lipid ratios. Reproduced with permission.[62] Copyright 2020, ACS Publications.Shear‐Responsive AggregatesThe second strategy for targeted drug delivery involves nanoparticle aggregates that can disintegrate in regions with elevated shear stress (Figure 4). Through modulation of drug release kinetics, shear‐responsive aggregates can be used to achieve localized drug delivery and precise control of drug concentration. The Hagen‐Poiseuille equation indicates that the magnitude of shear stress is inversely proportional to the size of the particles (d−3), hence stenotic regions in vessels and high shear stress zones in medical devices generate elevated shear stress. Micron‐sized aggregates release nanoparticles carrying drugs upon experiencing high shear stress. Smaller particles experience less hydrodynamic force, allowing nanoparticles to adhere to the target zone. As the nanoparticles adhere to the high shear stress zone, drugs are subsequently released following drug release kinetics. The disintegration of more aggregates results in a greater release of nanoparticles and drugs.[66]Marosfoi et al. present a novel technique for treating emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) in stroke patients using shear‐activated nanoparticles. The approach involves delivering recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) to the clot site, activated by the shear stress induced by blood flow. To provide an effective therapy option for ELVO, they combined temporary endovascular bypass (TEB) with shear‐activated nanotherapeutic (SA‐NT). To make high shear stress inside the rabbit body and temporary clot, the authors utilized stent retriever. Shear‐responsive aggregates containing nanoparticles have the size of 4 µm and 200 nm, respectively coated with rtPA, can adhere to surfaces under pathological shear stress (>100 dyn cm−2) while remaining intact under physiological shear stress.[34]In another study, Korin et al. used this approach by synthesizing micro‐sized poly (lactic‐co‐glycolic acid) (PLGA) shear‐activated nanotherapeutics (SA‐NTs) aggregates coated with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) using a spray‐drying technique and biotin–streptavidin coating method (Figure 7A). The stability of these aggregates in aqueous solutions is attributed to their hydrophobic nature, which limits the release of drugs embedded on their surface to high shear stress zones such as occlusion zones. A microfluidic device was used to assess the efficacy of their SA‐NT approach in selectively targeting agents to stenotic regions under hemodynamic flow conditions and it was found that perfusion of SA‐NTs through these microfluidic devices resulted in a 16‐fold increase in the release of free NPs downstream of the obstruction (Figure 7B). Also, the in vitro rheometer investigation demonstrates that aggregates can only be broken down to nanoparticles under shear stress greater than 100 dyn cm−2, which corresponds to the shear stress caused by a 60% lumen blockage of coronary artery, and the thrombolytic agent tPA can be released. The aggregates were administered intravenously into a mesenteric injury mouse model, demonstrating their efficient thrombolysis effect by delaying the time to full vessel occlusion in a FeCl3 mouse arterial thrombus model, reversing the debilitating hemodynamic changes of acute pulmonary embolism ex vivo at a concentration 100‐times lower than native rtPA, and having a higher survival rate compared to the mouse pulmonary embolism model (Figure 7C,D). Fluorescently‐labelled tPA exhibited preferential accumulation of shear‐dispersed nanoparticles near the stenosed vessel, resulting in rapid reopening of the vessel at a 100‐fold lower dose than similar active tPA (Figure 7E). In mouse models, 86% of mice treated with tPA‐coated SA‐NTs survived, whereas all control mice died within 45 min of injection due to acute emboli formation caused by fibrin clots, and no adverse bleeding effects were detected, as well as rapid clearance of micro‐aggregates from the systemic circulation (Figure 7F).[39]7FigureShear‐responsive aggregate system. A) The scanning electron microscope (SEM) image displays the SA‐NTs (2–5 µm, on the left) and PLGA nanoparticles (180 nm, on the right), utilized in the synthesis of the aggregate system. B) SA‐NTs dissociate into smaller spheres of NPs as a result of shear stress in a microfluidic model of a stenosed artery. C) The schematic of shear‐targeted thrombolytic drug delivery in a mouse artery thrombosis model. Ferric chloride injury leads to a partially obstructed thrombus. Injected SA‐NTs accumulate near the thrombus due to local shear stress, coated with tPA for clot interaction and progressive blockage clearance. D) Intravenous fluorescence microscopy images reveal that tPA platelet mimetics, given as a bolus injection, eliminate a thrombus in a partially blocked mesenteric artery within 5 min. E) The pressure recovery efficiency of nanoparticle aggregates at lower doses and bolus delivery. F) Mice survival rate for tPA‐coated SA‐NTs and control mice group. Reproduced with permission.[39] Copyright 2012, Science Publications.Toward Drug‐Loaded Liposomes for Thrombosis Prevention in Medical DevicesTo prevent thrombosis formation and bleeding complications in medical devices, several classes of medications have been proposed and investigated: anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and thrombolytic agents. Liposomal formulations of these drugs can enhance their stability, targeting, and reduce their systemic side effects.[67] Anticoagulant, such as unfractionated heparin (UFH),[68] low molecular weight heparin (LMWH),[69] and bivalirudin [70] are the most commonly used drugs to lower the risk of thrombosis. Antiplatelet medications, such as aspirin, clopidogrel, ticagrelor and prasugrel can be used in combination with other anticoagulant medications to achieve optimal thromboprophylaxis and reducing the risk of thrombosis formation.[71] Thrombolytic agents such as tPA and urokinase can dissolve clots that have formed in the medical devices by enhancing their targeting to the clot site.[72]AnticoagulantsAnticoagulants are commonly used in medical devices to prevent blood clots. The commonly used anticoagulants commonly includes heparin, direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) (bivalirudin, argatroban, lepirudin), factor Xa inhibitors (danaparoid and fondaparinux), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) (DTI (dabigatran), Xabans (rivaroxaban, apixaban, darexaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban)), factor‐XIIa inhibitors, nafamostat mesylate (NM), and warfarin so that heparin and DTIs are the most prevalent anticoagulants used in critically ill patients.[33b] Even though anticoagulants are commonly used in medical devices to reduce the risk of thrombosis, their systemic administration increases the risk of bleeding complications.[73] Red blood cells (RBCs) have gained attention as a promising drug delivery vehicle due to their innate properties such as biocompatibility, biodegradability, non‐immunogenicity, and extended circulation time. Their large surface area also enables effective drug loading. RBCs can enclose drugs either within their lipid bilayer or within the haemoglobin, allowing for sustained drug release. Furthermore, engineering RBCs to express specific receptors on their surface facilitates targeted drug delivery to specific cells or tissues. The use of RBCs as nanocarriers in medical devices can potentially prevent thrombosis. These RBCs could be customized to target specific thrombosis sites within the medical devices or release drugs in response to changes in shear stress, like shear‐responsive liposomes.Chen et al. utilized electrostatic forces to bind heparin‐encapsulated nanoparticles onto RBCs to prolong heparin circulation in the body. This extended blood circulation time is advantageous because it increases the chances of the nanoparticles reaching their target site and delivering their payload. The nanoparticles, made up of heparin and thiolated poly‐L‐lysine (PLL), exhibit increased stability through the formation of disulfide bonds (Figure 8A). The positively charged heparin nanoparticles are attracted to the negatively charged RBCs. Since blood vessels at thrombus sites are narrowed, the magnitude of shear stress exerted on them increases significantly, resulting in the targeted release of heparin‐containing nanoparticles (cNPs) from RBCs. Under low shear stress (1 Pa), scanning electron microscope imaging revealed that ≈80% of the particles were attached to the RBCs while under high shear‐stress (10 Pa), ≈50% of the particles remained attached to the RBCs after 24 h. After 48 h, nearly all the particles were detached, demonstrating the effect of shear stress on nanoparticle detachment from RBCs (Figure 8B). The size and charge of cNPs at the optimal ratio of poly‐L‐lysine to heparin, as well as microscopic images of cNPs and RBCs adsorbed with cNPs in both aqueous and dry states, were also characterized (Figure 8C).[64]8FigureA) A diagram of preparing red blood cell‐adsorbed cross‐linked nanoparticles (RBC‐cNPs). B)the release of heparin/polypeptide hybrid nanoparticles cross‐linked with disulfide bonds (cNPs) from red blood cells (RBCs) in response to varying levels of shear stress over time. C) Characteristics of heparin‐polypeptide hybrid nanoparticles cross‐linked with disulfide bonds (cNPs). D) Cumulative release profiles of heparin released over time for various formulations, including free heparin, heparin/polypeptide hybrid nanoparticles (NPs), heparin/polypeptide cross‐linked with disulfide bonds (cNPs), and RBC‐adsorbed cNPs (RBC‐cNPs). Reproduced with permission.[64] Copyright 2016, Wiley‐VCH.Antiplatelet AgentsDue to high shear stress sites, the ECMO circuit can activate platelets and increase the risk of thrombosis. By inhibiting platelet aggregation, antiplatelet drugs can help prevent thrombosis and reduce the risk of thrombosis formation. Antiplatelet medications can prevent clot formation or stop existing clots from growing further, and they particularly target platelets by blocking their adherence or aggregation via different mechanisms. Since platelets play a crucial role in haemostasis, the use of antiplatelet medications for a variety of clinical disorders has grown in popularity in recent years. Aspirin, integrin GPIIb/IIIa (αIIbβ3) antagonists, thienopyridines, dipyridamole, and ticagrelor are the most often utilized antiplatelet medicines.[74] GPIIb/IIIa antagonists work by preventing fibrinogen from binding to integrin IIb3. However, bleeding and thrombocytopenia are the most common adverse effects.[75] Abciximab, Eptifibatide, and Tirofiban are three parenteral GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors that have been developed and licensed for use in North America, particularly to prevent thrombotic reocclusion following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).[76] They impede fibrinogen and vWF binding, and thereby platelet aggregation, by blocking GPIIb/IIIa receptors on activated platelets. Physiologic platelet agonists such as ADP, epinephrine, collagen, or thrombin generate intracellular signals that convert the inactive GPIIb/IIIa on resting platelets to an active conformation in response to disturbed vascular endothelium. This reveals a high‐affinity binding location for ligands like fibrinogen on the extracellular domain of GPIIb/IIIa. When fibrinogen and/or vWF bind to active GPIIb/IIIa in the presence of calcium ions, adjacent platelets aggregate.[77]Molloy et al. addressed the high risk of bleeding complications associated with antiplatelet therapy by utilizing shear‐responsive nanocapsules (NCs) for targeted drug delivery to thrombosis sites. In vivo and in vitro experiments were conducted to compare this approach to systematic antiplatelet therapy. Phosphatidylcholine (PC)‐based nanocapsules containing eptifibatide were tested for shear sensitivity using microfluidic devices with 80% stenosis (Figure 9A). Fluorescence microscopy was used to observe the inhibitory effect of drug‐loaded nanocapsules on thrombosis (Figure 9D). The results indicate that nanocapsules are only ruptured at the stenosis area with a shear rate of 8000 s−1, but not in the upstream area with a shear rate of 1000 s−1 (Figure 9B,C). The study also demonstrated that eptifibatide‐loaded nanoparticles have antithrombotic properties without prolonging bleeding time in a mouse model of vessel wall damage.[63]9FigureAntiplatelet nanocapsules target thrombi in stenotic vessel segments. A) In vitro microfluidic channels have a semicircular protrusion on the sidewall with an occlusion of 80%. B) Citrate anticoagulated whole blood loaded with either phosphate‐buffered saline (PBS) NCs (PBS‐NCs) or eptifibatide NCs (E‐NCs) was perfused at 1000 s−1 input shear rates and imaged upstream and within the stenosis. C) PBS, PBS‐NCs, E‐NCs, or free eptifibatide were used to measure platelet aggregate surface area in the upstream section with a shear rate of 1000 s−1 and the stenotic region with 8000 s−1. D) Fluorescent images of DiOC6‐labeled platelet thrombi (red) on collagen type I in the presence of NBD‐PE‐labelled NCs following blood perfusion (green). Reproduced with permission.[63] Copyright 2012, Elsevier Publications.Thrombolytic DrugsThrombolytic (clot‐busting) drugs dissolve blood clots within blood vessels and are used in medical devices to prevent damage to components from clot formation. In particular, tPA,[78] rtPA,[79] urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA),[80] and streptokinase are commonly used thrombolytic drugs in ECMO. These drugs activate plasminogen, which degrades fibrin, the main component of blood clots.[81] However, the use of thrombolytic drugs in medical devices must be considered on an individual basis due to the risk of bleeding and other comorbidities. Factors such as the patient's clinical condition, duration of device support, underlying medical condition, and other comorbidities should be considered. Liposome‐loaded thrombolytic drugs are designed to target and deliver the thrombolytic drug specifically to the site of the blood clot, while minimizing exposure to healthy tissue.[82] This approach can enhance the efficacy of thrombolytic drugs and decrease the risk of bleeding complications by increasing drug stability through protecting it from enzymatic degradation and inactivation in the body.[83] It also extends the drug's circulation time, and improves drug specificity via the incorporation of receptor‐binding molecules.[84]The activated‐platelet‐sensitive nanocarrier is designed to release its contents when encountering activated platelets, enabling targeted delivery of antithrombotic drugs to the site of the clot. This targeted delivery of antithrombotic drugs can increase the effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy and reduce the risk of bleeding complications.[85] Huang et al. developed a low‐toxicity targeted delivery system using PEGylated liposomes coated with cyclic RGD (cRGD) peptide for tPA. The interaction between cRGD peptides on liposomes and GPIIb/IIIa integrins on activated platelets results in the fusion of platelet membrane and liposomes and the release of tPA (Figure 10A). This approach resulted in significantly higher and faster release of tPA compared to untargeted liposomes.[86] Figure 10B displays the results of a study on the binding affinity of different liposomal formulations to resting and activated platelets. The mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of resting and activated platelets incubated with various formulations was analyzed. The results suggest that tPA‐PEG‐cRGD‐lip displayed significantly enhanced staining of activated platelets compared to the other liposomal formulations, indicating its ability to efficiently facilitate targeted drug delivery to activated platelets at a thrombus site. The results also suggest that PEG‐cRGD‐lip showed significantly enhanced dissolution of blood clots compared to Lip and PEG‐lip (Figure 10C). Zhang et al. combined active thrombus targeting with cRGD and gradual drug release from liposomes to improve in vivo thrombolytic efficacy 4‐fold over free uPA while also shortening the bleeding time of the tail bleeding assay of hemostasis, potentially reducing side effects associated with uPA by reducing the amount of uPA required.[87]10FigureA) Depiction of the targeted release of tPA at the site of a thrombus using tPA‐PEG‐cRGD‐lip. B) Comparison of fluorescence microscopy images (top) and the mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) (bottom) of platelets in both resting and activated states after incubation with FITC‐labeled tPA‐lip, tPA‐PEG‐lip, and tPA‐PEG‐cRGD‐lip. C) The effects of different tPA formulations on clot dissolution. Reproduced with permission.[86] Copyright 2019, Elsevier.Novel Microfluidic Devices to Assess Thrombosis and Drug ReleaseNanoparticles hold promise as therapeutic agents for treating cardiovascular disease. However, their development faces obstacles due to a lack of in vitro platforms that precisely emulate in vivo environment for analyzing their behavior.[88] Designing and optimizing effective antithrombotic nanoparticles requires understanding their reactions in the dynamic bloodstream environment and how they interact with blood components and medical devices. Their efficiency in vivo, however, is influenced by a variety of parameters, including their size, shape, surface chemistry, and ability to interact with blood components.[89] To optimize the design and formulation of antithrombotic nanoparticles for maximum therapeutic efficacy, it is necessary to understand the circulation time, uptake by target cells, and toxicity affect their biological behavior.Microfluidic technology offers a promising in vitro platform for studying the behavior of nanoparticles, particularly for the development of effective nanoparticle‐based therapies for cardiovascular disease.[90] It can replicate the complex flow and shear conditions of the bloodstream and provide controlled and well‐defined conditions for nanoparticle testing and linking in vitro measurements of nanoparticle behavior with their performance in vivo. With the potential to model a range of biological systems, microfluidic devices can save valuable and costly samples, minimize experimentation costs, and can be highly automated, expediting drug testing and development.[91] Zilberman‐Rudenko et al. designed a multi‐bypass microfluidics ladder network to investigate the patterns of blood clot formation under complex shear. They simulated complex blood fluid dynamics by assuming that red blood cells and platelets are non‐interacting spherical particles transported by bulk fluid flow. They were able to predict the patterns of blood clot formation at specific locations in the device, and their experimental data was used to adjust the model to account for the dynamic presence of thrombus formation. A distinct flow and thrombus formation patterns were observed in the microfluidic device, implying a specific correlation between microvascular geometry and thrombus formation dynamics under shear. This model has the potential to identify regions susceptible to intravascular thrombus formation within the microvasculature as well as in therapeutic devices.[92]In another study, Marcial et al. [93] developed a microfluidic platform with multiple stenoses to study thrombosis formation under the hemodynamic conditions of medical devices, such as ECMO, in which blood passes through the circuit multiple times (Figure 11). They confirmed thrombus formation at severe stenosis with 85% narrowing and high shear rates. Clots were found in all stenoses, but the first stenosis had the highest percentage of aggregation. The findings suggest that the first stenosis should be treated earlier to prevent total occlusion. These findings may aid in the assessment and treatment of patients with multiple lesions in the same blood vessel, as well as the long‐term effect of multiple blood passes inside the medical devices.11FigureA) The setup used to monitor the formation of thrombosis. B) Fabricated microfluidic chip. The chip contained channels with one (a), two (b), and three (c) lesions. Reproduced with permission.[93] Copyright 2022, Springer Nature.Challenges and Factors Impacting the Efficacy of Liposomal Drug Delivery SystemsLiposomes are widely used for drug delivery due to their ability to encapsulate both hydrophilic and hydrophobic compounds. Liposomal drugs have the potential to improve the efficiency and specificity of drug delivery by protecting drugs from enzymatic degradation and providing targeted delivery to the site of action.[94] Despite their potential to improve drug efficiency and specificity, liposomal drugs face challenges such as hemolysis, toxicity, stability, and targeting issues. Additionally, the composition of the liposomes, environmental conditions, and the presence of other medical conditions can significantly affect their functionality. Moreover, patients using medical devices will typically receive support for several days or even weeks. During this time, the liposomes must remain stable to effectively deliver drugs and prevent thrombosis formation. Liposomes that are not stable will tend to leak their contents or be rapidly removed from circulation, reducing their efficacy in preventing thrombosis. This section examines the challenges and factors influencing the effectiveness of liposomal drugs for targeted drug delivery in medical devices.Liposomes are generally non‐hemolytic and non‐toxic,[95] but under specific circumstances they can cause hemolysis, the rupture of red blood cells. Hemolysis is influenced by liposome size, surface charge, concentration, and composition. Higher concentrations, larger size, and positive surface charge induce greater hemolysis.[96] However, uncharged liposomes can lower hemolysis.[97]Liposomal drugs are considered as foreign nanoparticles that can be attacked by immune system. They can trigger complement activation‐related pseudo‐allergy (CARPA),[98] an adverse immune phenomenon that can cause acute hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in up to 45% of individuals.[99] European Medicines Agency recommends in vivo and in vitro assessment of CARPA as a preclinical immune toxicity analysis prior to developing liposomal drugs. It has been shown that Pad‐PC‐Pad liposomes with a concentration of 20 mg mL−1 were shown to induce complement cascade via the alternative pathway, while with a lower lipid concentration of 2 mg mL−1, no complement activation was observed in both in vitro human and porcine sera and animal porcine model. The study found that Pad‐PC‐Pad demonstrates less risk of CARPA compared to food and drug administration (FDA)‐approved liposomal drugs. However, the low transient phase temperature of Pad‐PC‐Pad in the human body limits its clinical application, and more stable liposomes should be explored.[100]The stability of the nanocarriers is a major concern in shear‐responsive drug delivery systems. The prolonged use of MCS medical devices such as ECMO or LVAD for severely ill patients suffering from conditions such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or severe cardiac failure poses a challenge to liposome stability and circulation time that must be addressed. Liposomes are recognized and cleared by the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS), reducing their therapeutic potential.[101] Strategies such as PEGylation, steric stabilization, stealth liposomes, targeting ligands, size, charge, and formulation can improve stability, circulation time and efficacy of liposomal drugs. PEGylation involves attaching PEG molecules to liposome surfaces,[102] which improves their stability and circulation time in vivo by reducing recognition and uptake by the MPS.[103] This phenomenon can be explained by PEG‐induced steric hindrance that refers to the physical obstruction of the access of molecules to a surface by the presence of other molecules. When PEG molecules are attached to the surface of liposomes, they create a cloud of PEG molecules around the liposomes that physically obstructs the access of other molecules to the surface of the liposomes. This reduction in the rate of liposome‐cell and liposome‐protein interactions increases the circulation time of liposomes in the bloodstream, making them more stable and reducing the rate of their clearance by the MPS.[104]Liposome size and charge are important factors that can influence liposome stability. Smaller liposomes with a neutral or positive surface charge circulate longer than larger liposomes with a negative surface charge as they are less likely to be recognized by the MPS.[105] Depending on the lipid content, liposomes can be neutral, positive, or negative in charge. Neutral liposomes tend to aggregate and have less physical stability, and they do not interact strongly with cells, causing the drug to be released into the extracellular space. However, charged liposomes have several advantages over neutral liposomes, including the ability to prevent aggregation and enhance cell contact by generating zeta‐potential, an electrostatic repulsion.[106]The incorporation of cholesterol into the membrane of liposomes can have a substantial effect on their stability and circulation time.[107] Cholesterol is a steroid molecule that naturally exist in cell membranes and is known to contribute to the fluidity and stability of membranes. Liposomes devoid of cholesterol in the bilayer are more susceptible to leakage and fusion with other vesicles, and they can reduce circulation time since they are rapidly cleared by the MPS. Cholesterol can affect the circulation time of liposomes by altering their interaction with the immune system of the body. Cholesterol can modify the surface properties of liposomes by decreasing their negative charge, thereby making them less susceptible to recognition and clearance by the MPS. This can increase the circulation time of liposomes, allowing them to remain at their target site for a longer duration. When cholesterol is incorporated into the liposomal membrane, it can increase the stability of the liposomes by reinforcing the integrity of the lipid bilayer. Cholesterol is a molecule that has both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions, which allows it to span across the hydrophobic core of the bilayer and interact with the polar headgroups of the phospholipids. This interaction can help to reduce the fluidity of the bilayer and increase its packing density, making the liposome more resistant to leakage and fusion with other vesicles.[108] The effects of cholesterol are dose‐dependent, and optimization of its concentration during formulation is necessary to achieve desired outcomes. Liposomes should also be characterized for size, shape, charge, and fluidity to ensure stability and suitability for their intended use.[109]Different natural and synthetic phospholipids have different phase transition temperature (TM), which is a very important parameter influencing drug encapsulation efficiency, storage stability, and in vivo stability. Liposomes with higher TM are more thermally stable than those with lower TM. This is because when the temperature is below the TM, the lipids in the bilayer are in a solid‐ordered phase that makes the bilayer more rigid and less permeable to small molecules. This increased rigidity of the bilayer makes the liposomes more resistant to environmental stimulus, such as temperature changes, pH changes, and shear stress. The TM of liposomes is dependent on the type of lipids that make up the bilayer. Liposomes composed of saturated lipids have a higher TM than those composed of unsaturated lipids. In particular, distearoyl phosphotidyl Choline (DSPC) and hydrogenated soybean phosphatidylcholine (HSPC) have a TM of 58 ○C [110] and 52 ○C,[111] respectively, while the TM of the dioleolyl phosphotidy I choline (DOPC) is − 20 ○C.[112]Targeting liposomes with antibodies is a method of directing liposomes to specific cells or tissues in the body.[113] The effect of targeting liposomes with antibodies on their stability and circulation time can depend on various factors, including the type of antibody and the target. In general, targeting liposomes with antibodies can increase their stability and circulation time in the bloodstream by reducing the rate of liposome‐cell and liposome‐protein interactions. This is achieved by reducing the rate of opsonization, which is the process of liposomes being marked by proteins, this marking allows the immune system to recognize and remove them. Additionally, targeting liposomes with antibodies can also increase their stability by enhancing the specificity of the liposomes to their target, resulting in a higher accumulation of liposomes at the target site and a reduced rate of clearance by the MPS. Thrombosis targeted liposomes could potentially be used to prevent or treat blood clots in medical devices. The liposomes can be coated with an antibody that binds to a protein found on the surface of the clot, such as tissue factor, which allows the liposomes to target the clot specifically. Once the liposomes reach the clot, the clot‐dissolving agent, usually a plasminogen activator, is released, and it breaks down the clot.[114] However, it is worth noting that targeting liposomes with antibodies can also have some limitations. For example, antibodies can be expensive, and the conjugation process can alter the properties of liposomes, such as their size and charge, which can affect their stability and circulation time.[115] Therefore, the effect of targeting liposomes with antibodies on their stability and circulation time is complex and needs to be carefully evaluated.Despite FDA approval of several liposomal drugs, clinical challenges and limitations remain.[116] Due to the sensitivity of liposomes to environmental factors such as temperature, pH, and humidity, and shear stress, determining the optimal dose is difficult. Therefore, proper storage and handling are essential to ensure the stability and shelf‐life of liposomal drugs. Additionally, the formulation of liposomal drugs can also be a challenge, as the composition and size of the liposomes can greatly affect their stability and effectiveness. Formulation optimization can help to identify the optimal liposome size, composition, and surface properties that are required to achieve the desired pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties.[117] Limited approval and insurance coverage, as well as high production costs, can reduce accessibility and affordability for patients. These challenges can be overcome by developing efficient production methods and advocating for favorable reimbursement policies.[118] Further research and careful clinical trial design can help to identify optimal dosing and administration methods, as well as to assess safety and efficacy in patients. Overall, while liposomes have great potential as drug delivery vehicles, more research is needed to address these challenges and improve their efficacy in vivo.Conclusions and OutlookMedical devices usually provide respiratory and/or cardiac support to critically ill patients. However, the use of medical devices is associated with a high risk of thrombosis formation and bleeding complications. Shear stress is an important mechanism in the medical devices, as it can cause injury to the blood cells and increase the risk of thrombosis. The use of shear‐responsive liposomes, which are engineered to respond to the shear stress of blood flow, has the potential to further improve the specificity and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in medical devices. These engineered liposomes can be designed to release their contents only when they reach the site of high shear stress, reducing the risk of bleeding complications. These liposomes can be coated with an antibody that binds to activated platelets or fibrin mesh. Once the liposomes reach the clot, the antithrombotic agent is released, and it either prevents platelet aggregation and thrombosis or breaks down the thrombosis.The field of shear‐responsive drug carriers is still in its early stages, and there are numerous challenges that must be addressed to advance this technology toward clinical applications. There is currently no standardized assay to characterize shear activation of such drug carriers, and such assays would need to be validated and approved. In this way, microfluidic devices can be utilized for mimicking the shear stress conditions in medical devices for liposomal drug testing and investigate their efficacy under controlled condition. The use of microfluidic technology in in vitro drug testing has a variety of advantages including the ability to precisely control fluid flow, reduced sample and reagent requirements, and automation that facilitates faster experimentation. Consequently, this platform holds great promise for the creation of effective drugs to treat a variety of medical conditions.Moreover, significant issues such as hemolysis, stability, and toxicity can compromise the efficacy of liposomal drugs in vivo. In addition, temperature, pH, and humidity, shear stress can cause liposomes to degrade and lose their efficacy, resulting in stability issues. Liposomes can be recognized and cleared by the immune system, which can result in low levels of the drug reaching the target site and toxicity. While developing liposome‐based therapies for patients using medical devices, it is important to consider the stability of the liposomes. To effectively deliver drugs to the medical devises area and prevent thrombosis formation, the stability of liposomes over an extended period is crucial. In addition, optimization of size, charge, and formulation can help to determine the optimal liposome size, composition, and surface properties required to achieve the desired pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Additional research is required to optimize these particles for effective drug targeting, which is highly dependent on the used drugs. Therefore, choosing the appropriate drugs to use with this technology is crucial to its success.Despite various achievements, further investigation is required to bridge the gap between current advances and their clinical application. Notably, the use of shear‐responsive liposomes in medical devices is still under investigation and has not yet been approved for use in patients. Furthermore, it is important to note that the use of shear‐responsive liposomes in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy, which is commonly used in medical devices, should be carefully evaluated to prevent adverse interactions. Finally, liposomal drugs have a variety of clinical challenges and limitations that must be addressed. These barriers include difficulties in achieving targeted drug delivery, determining the optimal dose, issues with stability and shelf‐life, high production costs, administration routes, and regulatory approval challenges. Various strategies, such as targeted delivery systems, formulation optimization, the development of more efficient and cost‐effective manufacturing methods, and careful clinical trial design and monitoring, can help overcome these constraints.AcknowledgementsS.Z.S. was supported by a Monash PhD scholarship. C.E.H. was a Senior Research Fellow of the National Health and Medical Reserach Council (NHMRC) of Australia (award number GNT1154270). S.D.G. was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (#2016995) and the National Heart Foundation of Australia (#106675)Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.Conflict of InterestThe authors declare no conflict interest.a) J. T. Wolfe, A. Shradhanjali, B. J. Tefft, Tissue Eng., Part B 2022, 28, 1067;.b) Y. J. Hong, H. Jeong, K. W. Cho, N. Lu, D. H. Kim, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1808247.C. H. H. Chan, K. K. Ki, M. Zhang, C. Asnicar, H. J. Cho, C. Ainola, M. Bouquet, S. Heinsar, J. P. Pauls, G. L.i Bassi, Membranes 2021, 11, 313.A. G. Bhat, A. Golchin, D. K. Pasupula, J. A. Hernandez‐Montfort, Case Rep Crit Care 2019, 2019, 8594681.C. Weber, A. C. Deppe, A. Sabashnikov, I. Slottosch, E. Kuhn, K. Eghbalzadeh, M. Scherner, Y. H. Choi, N. Madershahian, T. Wahlers, Perfusion 2018, 33, 283.G. Parzy, F. Daviet, N. Persico, R. Rambaud, U. Scemama, M. Adda, C. Guervilly, S. Hraiech, K. Chaumoitre, A. Roch, L. Papazian, J. M. Forel, Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, 192.a) S. Heuts, M. Makhoul, A. N. Mansouri, F. S. Taccone, A. Obeid, M. Belliato, L. M. Broman, M. Malfertheiner, P. Meani, G. M. Raffa, T. Delnoij, J. Maessen, G. Bolotin, R. Lorusso, Artif. Organs 2022, 46, 349;.b) S. Vaquer, C. de Haro, P. Peruga, J. C. Oliva, A. Artigas, Ann Intensive Care 2017, 7, 51.A. Zangrillo, G. Landoni, G. Biondi‐Zoccai, M. Greco, T. Greco, G. Frati, N. Patroniti, M. Antonelli, A. Pesenti, F. Pappalardo, Crit Care Resusc 2013, 15, 172.R. R. Thiagarajan, R. P. Barbaro, P. T. Rycus, D. M. Mcmullan, S. A. Conrad, J. D. Fortenberry, M. L. Paden, ASAIO J. 2017, 63, 60.A. Abruzzo, V. Gorantla, S. E. Thomas, Thromb. Res. 2022, 212, 58.S. Karaz, E. Senses, Adv Nanobiomed Res 2023, 3, 2200101.T. Hoefer, A. Rana, B. Niego, S. Jagdale, H. J. Albers, E. E. Gardiner, R. K. Andrews, A. D. Van der Meer, C. E. Hagemeyer, E. Westein, Haematologica 2021, 106, 2874.Y. C. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, F. Jiang, K. Kyanian, S. S. S. Aye, T. Hong, P. Vatankhah, A. Nasser, A. Sun, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2023, 2214179.J. N. Kizhakkedathu, E. M. Conway, Blood 2022, 139, 1987.C. Tapeinos, A. Larrañaga, F. Tomatis, J. Bizeau, A. Marino, M. Battaglini, A. Pandit, G. Ciofani, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 1906283.M. Cihova, E. Müller, Y. Chandorkar, K. Thorwarth, G. Fortunato, K. Maniura‐Weber, J. F. Löffler, M. Rottmar, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2108256.a) I. H. Jaffer, J. I. Weitz, Acta Biomater. 2019, 94, 2;b) A. M. Ruhoff, J. K. Hong, L. Gao, J. Singh, C. Tran, G. Mackie, A. Waterhouse, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10, 2100988;c) M. B. Gorbet, M. V. Sefton, Biomaterials 2004, 25, 5681.C. A. Labarrere, A. E. Dabiri, G. S. Kassab, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 123.B. P. Nuyttens, T. Thijs, H. Deckmyn, K. Broos, Thromb. Res. 2011, 127, S26.a) S. Krishnaswamy, J. Thromb. Haemostasis 2013, 11, 265;.b) Y. Sang, M. Roest, B. de Laat, P. G. de Groot, D. Huskens, Blood Rev. 2021, 46, 100733;.c) H. De Boer, C. Verseyden, L. Ulfman, J. Zwaginga, I. Bot, E. Biessen, T. Rabelink, A. Van Zonneveld, Arterioscler., Thromb., Vasc. Biol. 2006, 26, 1653.L. Xiao, Y. Ma, R. Crawford, J. Mendhi, Y. Zhang, H. Lu, Q. Zhao, J. Cao, C. Wu, X. Wang, Mater. Today 2022, 15, 100303.a) S. Rahman, A. Fogelson, V. Hlady, Colloids Surf., B 2020, 193, 111118;.b) F. Swieringa, H. M. Spronk, J. W. Heemskerk, P. E. van der Meijden, Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost. 2018, 2, 450.F. Fiusco, L. M. Broman, L. Prahl Wittberg, ASAIO J. 2022, 68, 79.a) S. Nomura, N. N. Tandon, T. Nakamura, J. Cone, S. Fukuhara, J. Kambayashi, Atherosclerosis 2001, 158, 277;.b) C. H. Chan, M. J. Simmonds, K. H. Fraser, K. Igarashi, K. K. Ki, T. Murashige, M. T. Joseph, J. F. Fraser, G. D. Tansley, N. Watanabe, J. Biomech. 2022, 130, 110898.A. Rana, E. Westein, B. e. Niego, C. E. Hagemeyer, Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2019, 6, 141.A. H. Gillespie, A. Doctor, Front. Pediatr. 2021, 9, 629824.L. Lanotte, J. Mauer, S. Mendez, D. A. Fedosov, J. M. Fromental, V. Claveria, F. Nicoud, G. Gompper, M. Abkarian, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 13289.a) S. Sohrabi, Y. Liu, Artif. Organs 2017, 41, E80;.b) J. W. Weisel, R. I. Litvinov, J. Thromb. Haemost. 2019, 17, 271.C. Fisser, M. Winkler, M. V. Malfertheiner, A. Philipp, M. Foltan, D. Lunz, F. Zeman, L. S. Maier, M. Lubnow, T. Müller, Crit. Care 2021, 25, 160.J. H. Levy, J. M. Connors, N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 826.A. Koster, Y. Weng, W. Böttcher, T. Gromann, H. Kuppe, R. Hetzer, Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007, 83, 1865.M. Larsson, V. Rayzman, M. W. Nolte, K. F. Nickel, J. Björkqvist, A. Jämsä, M. P. Hardy, M. Fries, S. Schmidbauer, P. Hedenqvist, M. Broomé, I. Pragst, G. Dickneite, M. J. Wilson, A. D. Nash, C. Panousis, T. Renné, Sci. Transl. Med. 2014, 6, 222ra17.K. L. Wood, B. Ayers, I. Gosev, N. Kumar, A. L. Melvin, B. Barrus, S. Prasad, Ann. Thoracic Surge. 2020, 109, 1458.a) M. Zhang, J. P. Pauls, N. Bartnikowski, A. B. Haymet, C. H. Chan, J. Y. Suen, B. Schneider, K. K. Ki, A. K. Whittaker, M. S. Dargusch, ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 7, 4402;b) S. Zeibi Shirejini, J. Carberry, Z. K. McQuilten, A. J. Burrell, S. D. Gregory, C. E. Hagemeyer, Thromb. J. 2023, 21, 11;c) M. C. Jen, M. C. Serrano, R. Van Lith, G. A. Ameer, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2012, 22, 239.M. G. Marosfoi, N. Korin, M. J. Gounis, O. Uzun, S. Vedantham, E. T. Langan, A. L. Papa, O. W. Brooks, C. Johnson, A. S. Puri, D. Bhatta, M. Kanapathipillai, B. R. Bronstein, J. Y. Chueh, D. E. Ingber, A. K. Wakhloo, Stroke 2015, 46, 3507.J. H. Lee, H. Oh, U. Baxa, S. R. Raghavan, R. Blumenthal, Biomacromolecules 2012, 13, 3388.a) M. Guvendiren, H. D. Lu, J. A. Burdick, Soft Matter 2012, 8, 260;b) M. N. Holme, I. A. Fedotenko, D. Abegg, J. Althaus, L. Babel, F. Favarger, R. Reiter, R. Tanasescu, P. L. Zaffalon, A. Ziegler, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7, 536;.c) Y. Wang, A. V. Pisapati, X. F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10, 2002196.N. Korin, M. J. Gounis, A. K. Wakhloo, D. E. Ingber, JAMA Neurol. 2015, 72, 119.T. Saxer, A. Zumbuehl, B. Müller, Cardiovasc. Res. 2013, 99, 328.N. Korin, M. Kanapathipillai, B. D. Matthews, M. Crescente, A. Brill, T. Mammoto, K. Ghosh, S. Jurek, S. A. Bencherif, D. Bhatta, A. U. Coskun, C. L. Feldman, D. D. Wagner, D. E. Ingber, Science 2012, 337, 738.D. L. Bark Jr, D. N. Ku, J. Biomech. 2010, 43, 2970.M. Zhou, Y. Yu, R. Chen, X. Liu, Y. Hu, Z. Ma, L. Gao, W. Jian, L. Wang, Front Cardiovasc Med 2023, 10, 1083547.A. Maruf, Y. Wang, T. Yin, J. Huang, N. Wang, C. Durkan, Y. Tan, W. Wu, G. Wang, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2019, 8, 1900036.E. Roux, P. Bougaran, P. Dufourcq, T. Couffinhal, Front Physiol 2020, 11, 861.J. J. Chiu, S. Chien, Physiol. Rev. 2011, 91, 327.a) M. N. Holme, G. Schulz, H. Deyhle, T. Weitkamp, F. Beckmann, J. A. Lobrinus, F. Rikhtegar, V. Kurtcuoglu, I. Zanette, T. Saxer, B. Müller, Nat. Protoc. 2014, 9, 1401;.b) C. Cheng, F. Helderman, D. Tempel, D. Segers, B. Hierck, R. Poelmann, A. van Tol, D. J. Duncker, D. Robbers‐Visser, N. T. Ursem, Atherosclerosis 2007, 195, 225;.c) D. N. Ku, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1997, 29, 399;d) M. Zamir, J. Gen. Physiol. 1977, 69, 449.a) G. Fuchs, N. Berg, L. M. Broman, L. Prahl Wittberg, Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13985;.b) S. Gross‐Hardt, F. Hesselmann, J. Arens, U. Steinseifer, L. Vercaemst, W. Windisch, D. Brodie, C. Karagiannidis, Crit. Care 2019, 23, 348.a) M. T. Griffin, K. Ashworth, N. Hill, J. von Behren, J. Di Paola, D. N. Ku, Nanomed.: Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2021, 35, 102405;.b) L. D. C. Casa, D. H. Deaton, D. N. Ku, J. Vascul. Surg. 2015, 61, 1068.a) V. Thondapu, D. Shishikura, J. Dijkstra, S. J. Zhu, E. Revalor, P. W. Serruys, W. J. van Gaal, E. K. Poon, A. Ooi, P. Barlis, Front Cardiovasc Med 2022, 9, 835270;b) H. Zafar, F. Sharif, M. J. Leahy, Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc 2014, 5, 68;c) J. F. LaDisa, L. E. Olson, H. A. Douglas, D. C. Warltier, J. R. Kersten, P. S. Pagel, Biomed. Eng. Online 2006, 5, 40.a) C. M. Otto, Mass Medical Soc. 2000, 343, 652;b) M. Bortot, A. Sharifi, K. Ashworth, F. Walker, A. Cox, K. Ruegg, N. Clendenen, K. B. Neeves, D. Bark, J. Di Paola, Cell Mol. Bioeng. 2020, 13, 379.a) R. Mongrain, J. Rodés‐Cabau, Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2006, 59, 1;.b) B. J. Ballermann, A. Dardik, E. Eng, A. Liu, Kidney Int. 1998, 54, S100.S. Gross‐Hardt, F. Hesselmann, J. Arens, U. Steinseifer, L. Vercaemst, W. Windisch, D. Brodie, C. Karagiannidis, Crit. Care 2019, 23, 348.a) A. R. Curtas, H. G. Wood, P. E. Allaire, J. C. McDaniel, S. W. Day, D. B. Olsen, ASAIO J. 2002, 48, 552;.b) B. P. Selgrade, G. A. Truskey, Artif. Organs 2012, 36, E89.a) S. Baratchi, M. T. Zaldivia, M. Wallert, J. Loseff‐Silver, S. Al‐Aryahi, J. Zamani, P. Thurgood, A. Salim, N. M. Htun, D. Stub, Circulation 2020, 142, 1092;.b) V. Raghav, I. Okafor, M. Quach, L. Dang, S. Marquez, A. P. Yoganathan, Ann. Thoracic Surge. 2016, 101, 1759.J. F. LaDisa Jr, A. Ghorbannia, D. S. Marks, P. Mason, H. Otake, Fluids 2022, 7, 325.J. W. Myerson, B. Braender, O. Mcpherson, P. M. Glassman, R. Y. Kiseleva, V. V. Shuvaev, O. Marcos‐Contreras, M. E. Grady, H. S. Lee, C. F. Greineder, Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1802373.S. Y. Yao, M. L. Shen, S. J. Li, X. D. Wu, M. M. Zhang, L. N. Ma, Y. P. Li, Colloids Surf., B 2020, 186, 110718.S. P. Samuel, N. Jain, F. O'Dowd, T. Paul, D. Kashanin, V. A. Gerard, Y. K. Gun'ko, A. Prina‐Mello, Y. Volkov, Int. J. Nanomed. 2012, 7, 2943.T. Fujie, M. Yoshimoto, Soft Matter 2019, 15, 9537.C. H. Albertsen, J. Kulkarni, D. Witzigmann, M. Lind, K. Petersson, J. B. Simonsen, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2022, 188, 114416.H. Yu, J. S. Palazzolo, Y. Ju, B. e. Niego, S. Pan, C. E. Hagemeyer, F. Caruso, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2022, 11, 2201151.A. L. Bernard, M. A. Guedeau‐Boudeville, V. Marchi‐Artzner, T. Gulik‐Krzywicki, J. M. di Meglio, L. Jullien, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2005, 287, 298.Z. J. Chen, S. C. Yang, X. L. Liu, Y. Gao, X. Dong, X. Lai, M. H. Zhu, H. Y. Feng, X. D. Zhu, Q. Lu, Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 4177.C. P. Molloy, Y. Yao, H. Kammoun, T. Bonnard, T. Hoefer, K. Alt, F. Tovar‐Lopez, G. Rosengarten, P. A. Ramsland, A. D. van der Meer, A. van den Berg, A. J. Murphy, C. E. Hagemeyer, K. Peter, E. Westein, J Thromb Haemost 2017, 15, 972.C. Chen, S. Li, K. Liu, G. Ma, X. Yan, Small 2016, 12, 4719.T. Natsume, M. Yoshimoto, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 3671.O. C. Farokhzad, A. Khademhosseini, S. Jon, A. Hermmann, J. Cheng, C. Chin, A. Kiselyuk, B. Teply, G. Eng, R. Langer, Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 5453.J. Guan, H. Guo, T. Tang, Y. Wang, Y. Wei, P. Seth, Y. Li, S. M. Dehm, E. Ruoslahti, H. B. Pang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2100478.M. N. Uricchio, R. Ramanan, S. A. Esper, H. Murray, D. J. Kaczorowski, B. D'Aloiso, H. Gomez, C. Sciortino, P. G. Sanchez, P. L. Sappington, ASAIO J. 2023, 69, 107.P. Paolisso, L. Bergamaschi, E. C. D'Angelo, F. Donati, M. Giannella, S. Tedeschi, R. Pascale, M. Bartoletti, G. Tesini, M. Biffi, Front Pharmacol 2020, 11, 1124.R. Trigonis, N. Smith, S. Porter, E. Anderson, M. Jennings, R. Kapoor, C. Hage, S. Moiz, J. Garcia, O. Rahman, J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2022, 36, 414.B. Colvin, R. Rivosecchi, J. Heart and Lung Transplant. 2021, 40, S533.D. J. Douin, S. Shaefi, S. K. Brenner, S. Gupta, I. Park, F. L. Wright, K. S. Mathews, L. Chan, H. Al‐Samkari, S. Orfanos, Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2021, 18, 1917.J. I. Nunez, A. F. Gosling, B. O'Gara, K. F. Kennedy, P. Rycus, D. Abrams, D. Brodie, S. Shaefi, A. R. Garan, E. W. Grandin, Intensive Care Med. 2022, 48, 213.C. Gachet, J. Thromb. Haemostasis 2015, 13, S313.C. E. Hagemeyer, K. Peter, Curr. Pharm. Des. 2010, 16, 4119.R. Slack, S. Macdonald, J. Roper, R. Jenkins, R. Hatley, Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2022, 21, 60.J. Sharifi‐Rad, F. Sharopov, S. M. Ezzat, W. Zam, A. O. Ademiluyi, O. H. Oyeniran, C. O. Adetunji, O. I. Roli, J. Živković, M. Martorell, High Blood Pressure Cardiovasc. Prev. 2023, 30, 93.M. Dumantepe, C. Ozturk, J Card Surg 2022, 37, 492.A. Garcia, J. W. Gander, E. R. Gross, A. Reichstein, S. S. Sheth, C. J. Stolar, W. Middlesworth, J Pediatr Surg 2011, 46, 2021.P. Simons, Y. Guo, V. Bondu, S. L. Tigert, M. Harkins, S. Goodfellow, C. Tompkins, D. Chabot‐Richards, X. O. Yang, L. G. Bosc, Viruses 2021, 13, 1597.K. Shibata, T. Hashimoto, T. Miyazaki, A. Miyazaki, K. Nobe, Curr. Pharm. Des. 2019, 25, 242.B. Vaidya, M. K. Nayak, D. Dash, G. Agrawal, S. P. Vyas, Int. J. Pharm. 2011, 403, 254.C. Li, H. Du, A. Yang, S. Jiang, Z. Li, D. Li, J. L. Brash, H. Chen, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1703934.H. Yu, J. S. Palazzolo, Y. Ju, B. e. Niego, S. Pan, C. E. Hagemeyer, F. Caruso, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2022, 11, 2201151.A. Zenych, C. Jacqmarcq, R. Aid, L. Fournier, L. M. F. Ramirez, F. Chaubet, T. Bonnard, D. Vivien, D. Letourneur, C. Chauvierre, Biomaterials 2021, 277, 121102.Y. Huang, L. Yu, J. Ren, B. Gu, C. Longstaff, A. D. Hughes, S. A. Thom, X. Y. Xu, R. Chen, J. Controlled Release 2019, 300, 1.N. Zhang, C. Li, D. Zhou, C. Ding, Y. Jin, Q. Tian, X. Meng, K. Pu, Y. Zhu, Acta Biomater. 2018, 70, 227.E. Prince, S. Kheiri, Y. Wang, F. Xu, J. Cruickshank, V. Topolskaia, H. Tao, E. W. Young, A. P. McGuigan, D. W. Cescon, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2022, 11, 2101085.a) S. Soares, J. Sousa, A. Pais, C. Vitorino, Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 360;.b) K. Asawa, K. Ishihara, K. N. Ekdahl, B. Nilsson, Y. Teramura, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2008167.a) Z. Ma, B. Li, J. Peng, D. Gao, Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 434;.b) H. Zhang, J. K. Jackson, M. Chiao, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1703606.a) Y. Liu, G. Yang, Y. Hui, S. Ranaweera, C. X. Zhao, Small 2022, 18, 2106580;b) S. Zeibi Shirejini, A. Mohammadi, Org. Process Res. Dev. 2017, 21, 292.J. Zilberman‐Rudenko, J. L. Sylman, H. H. Lakshmanan, O. J. McCarty, J. Maddala, Cell Mol. Bioeng. 2017, 10, 16.H. B. Flores Marcial, J. Choi, D. Ham, J. Kim, P. Jeong, J. Choi, W. T. Park, Nano 2022, 10, 18.A. C. Hortelão, S. García‐Jimeno, M. Cano‐Sarabia, T. Patiño, D. Maspoch, S. Sanchez, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2002767.a) N. Kaur, P. Mathur, P. Yadav, S. Chakraborty, A. Shanavas, Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 237, 116170;.b) P. Mittal, H. Vardhan, G. Ajmal, G. V. Bonde, R. Kapoor, A. Mittal, B. Mishra, Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 2019, 45, 365.a) S. Guo, Y. Shi, Y. Liang, L. Liu, K. Sun, Y. Li, Asian J Pharm. Sci. 2021, 16, 551;.b) J. H. Senior, K. R. Trimble, R. Maskiewicz, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1991, 1070, 173.L. da Silveira Cavalcante, Q. Feng, I. Chin‐Yee, J. P. Acker, J. L. Holovati, J Liposome Res 2017, 27, 56.J. Szebeni, Mol. Immunol. 2014, 61, 163.a) D. Ricklin, J. D. Lambris, Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 1265;.b) S. M. Moghimi, A. J. Andersen, D. Ahmadvand, P. P. Wibroe, T. L. Andresen, A. C. Hunter, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2011, 63, 1000;.c) S. M. Moghimi, Z. S. Farhangrazi, Nanomed.: Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2013, 9, 458.M. Buscema, S. Matviykiv, T. Mészáros, G. Gerganova, A. Weinberger, U. Mettal, D. Mueller, F. Neuhaus, E. Stalder, T. Ishikawa, J. Controlled Release 2017, 264, 14.Y. Tang, X. Wang, J. Li, Y. Nie, G. Liao, Y. Yu, C. Li, ACS Nano 2019, 13, 13015.D. Sivadasan, M. H. Sultan, O. A. Madkhali, S. H. Alsabei, A. A. Alessa, Molecules 2022, 27, 1086.F. Zahednezhad, M. Saadat, H. Valizadeh, P. Zakeri‐Milani, B. Baradaran, J. Controlled Release 2019, 305, 194.H. Hatakeyama, H. Akita, H. Harashima, Biol. Pharm. Bull 2013, 36, 892.a) A. S. Ulrich, Biosci. Rep. 2002, 22, 129;.b) P. Laverman, O. C. Boerman, W. J. Oyen, E. T. M. Dams, G. Storm, F. H. Corstens, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 1999, 37, 225.a) H. Lv, S. Zhang, B. Wang, S. Cui, J. Yan, J. Controlled Release 2006, 114, 100;.b) K. Aramaki, Y. Watanabe, J. Takahashi, Y. Tsuji, A. Ogata, Y. Konno, Colloids Surf. A 2016, 506, 732.Y. Wang, J. Wang, M. Sun, J. Zhang, Y. Bi, Materials Advances 2022, 3, 2417.P. Trucillo, R. Campardelli, E. Reverchon, J. CO2 Util. 2017, 18, 181.S. Geng, B. Yang, G. Wang, G. Qin, S. Wada, J. Y. Wang, Nanotechnology 2014, 25, 275103.H. Hashemzadeh, H. Javadi, M. Darvishi, Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1837.H. Kitayama, Y. Takechi, N. Tamai, H. Matsuki, C. Yomota, H. Saito, Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2014, 62, 58.E. Chibowski, A. Szcześ, Adsorption 2016, 22, 755.M. E. Klegerman, in Functional Lipid Nanosystems in Cancer, Jenny Stanford Publishing, 2021, p. 449.K. Shimizu, Y. Takeuchi, K. Otsuka, T. Mori, Y. Narita, S. Takasugi, Y. Magata, Y. Matsumura, N. Oku, J. Controlled Release 2020, 323, 519.L. Belfiore, D. N. Saunders, M. Ranson, K. J. Thurecht, G. Storm, K. L. Vine, J. Controlled Release 2018, 277, 1.U. Bulbake, S. Doppalapudi, N. Kommineni, W. Khan, Pharmaceutics 2017, 9, 12.C. Zylberberg, S. Matosevic, Drug Delivery 2016, 23, 3319.R. Foulkes, E. Man, J. Thind, S. Yeung, A. Joy, C. Hoskins, Biomater. Sci. 2020, 8, 4653. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advanced Functional Materials Wiley http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/shear-responsive-drug-delivery-systems-in-medical-devices-focus-on-8TnVrZ8P7s

Loading next page...

References (135)

K. Aramaki, Watanabe Yuki, Junpei Takahashi, Yusuke Tsuji, Ami Ogata, Yoshikazu Konno (2016)
Charge boosting effect of cholesterol on cationic liposomes
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 506
E. Cartwright, Helen Ashenbrucker, H. D.T. (1989)
Blood.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 23
Alejandro Garcia, Jeffrey Gander, E. Gross, Ari Reichstein, S. Sheth, C. Stolar, W. Middlesworth (2011)
The use of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator in a newborn with an intracardiac thrombus developed during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Journal of pediatric surgery, 46 10
Yaqiu Sang, M. Roest, B. Laat, P. Groot, D. Huskens (2020)
Interplay between platelets and coagulation
Blood Reviews, 46
Haitao Yu, Jason Palazzolo, Yi Ju, Be’eri Niego, Shuaijun Pan, C. Hagemeyer, F. Caruso (2022)
Polyphenol‐Functionalized Cubosomes as Thrombolytic Drug Carriers
Advanced Healthcare Materials, 11
(2016)
Circulation 2020 , 142 , 1092;
T. Natsume, M. Yoshimoto (2014)
Mechanosensitive liposomes as artificial chaperones for shear-driven acceleration of enzyme-catalyzed reaction.
ACS applied materials & interfaces, 6 5
V. Thondapu, D. Shishikura, J. Dijkstra, S. Zhu, E. Revalor, P. Serruys, W. Gaal, E. Poon, A. Ooi, P. Barlis (2022)
Non-Newtonian Endothelial Shear Stress Simulation: Does It Matter?
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 9
Shiqi Guo, Yanan Shi, Yanzi Liang, Lanze Liu, Kaoxiang Sun, Youxin Li (2021)
Relationship and improvement strategies between drug nanocarrier characteristics and hemocompatibility: What can we learn from the literature
Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 16
J. Weisel, R. Litvinov, R. Litvinov (2019)
Red blood cells: the forgotten player in hemostasis and thrombosis
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 17
Sheng-Yong Geng, Bin Yang, Guowu Wang, Geng Qin, S. Wada, Jin-Ye Wang (2014)
Two cholesterol derivative-based PEGylated liposomes as drug delivery system, study on pharmacokinetics and drug delivery to retina
Nanotechnology, 25
M. Cihova, E. Müller, Yashoda Chandorkar, K. Thorwarth, G. Fortunato, K. Maniura‐Weber, J. Löffler, M. Rottmar (2021)
Palladium‐Based Metallic Glass with High Thrombogenic Resistance for Blood‐Contacting Medical Devices
Advanced Functional Materials, 32
H. Hatakeyama, H. Akita, H. Harashima (2013)
The polyethyleneglycol dilemma: advantage and disadvantage of PEGylation of liposomes for systemic genes and nucleic acids delivery to tumors.
Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin, 36 6
Rosaire Mongrain, J. Rodés-Cabau (2006)
Papel de la tensión de cizallamiento en la enfermedad aterosclerótica y la reestenosis tras implantación de stent coronario
Revista Espanola De Cardiologia, 59
M. Holme, Illya Fedotenko, D. Abegg, Jasmin Althaus, Lucille Babel, F. Favarger, R. Reiter, Radu Tanasescu, Pierre-Léonard Zaffalon, André Ziegler, B. Müller, T. Saxer, A. Zumbuehl (2012)
Shear-stress sensitive lenticular vesicles for targeted drug delivery.
Nature nanotechnology, 7 8
D. Ku (1997)
BLOOD FLOW IN ARTERIES
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 29
J. Zilberman-Rudenko, J. Sylman, H. Lakshmanan, O. McCarty, Jeevan Maddala (2016)
Dynamics of Blood Flow and Thrombus Formation in a Multi-Bypass Microfluidic Ladder Network
Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 10
J. Chiu, S. Chien (2011)
Effects of disturbed flow on vascular endothelium: pathophysiological basis and clinical perspectives.
Physiological reviews, 91 1
Yixuan Tang, Xiaoyou Wang, Jie Li, Yu Nie, G. Liao, Yang Yu, Chong Li (2019)
Overcoming the Reticuloendothelial System Barrier to Drug Delivery with a "Don't-Eat-Us" Strategy.
ACS nano
Luciana Cavalcante, Q. Feng, I. Chin-Yee, J. Acker, J. Holovati (2017)
Effect of liposome-treated red blood cells in an anemic rat model
Journal of Liposome Research, 27
C. Chan, Katrina Ki, Meili Zhang, Cooper Asnicar, Hwajin Cho, C. Ainola, M. Bouquet, S. Heinsar, J. Pauls, G. Bassi, J. Suen, J. Fraser (2021)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation-Induced Hemolysis: An In Vitro Study to Appraise Causative Factors
Membranes, 11
S. Moghimi, A. Andersen, D. Ahmadvand, P. Wibroe, T. Andresen, A. Hunter (2011)
Material properties in complement activation.
Advanced drug delivery reviews, 63 12
O. Farokhzad, A. Khademhosseini, S. Jon, Aurelia Hermmann, Jianjun Cheng, C. Chin, Alice Kiselyuk, Benjamin Teply, G. Eng, R. Langer (2005)
Microfluidic system for studying the interaction of nanoparticles and microparticles with cells.
Analytical chemistry, 77 17
Cong Li, Hui Du, Aizhen Yang, Shuaibing Jiang, Zhenhua Li, Dan Li, J. Brash, Hong Chen (2017)
Thrombosis‐Responsive Thrombolytic Coating Based on Thrombin‐Degradable Tissue Plasminogen Activator (t‐PA) Nanocapsules
Advanced Functional Materials, 27
(2017)
Small 2022 , 18 2106580; b) S
B. Colvin, R. Rivosecchi (2021)
Parenteral Antiplatelet Agents in Three Patients Receiving VA-ECMO Support to Maintain Drug-Eluting Stent Patency
Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 40
Jose Nunez, Andre Gosling, B. O'Gara, K. Kennedy, P. Rycus, D. Abrams, D. Brodie, S. Shaefi, A. Garan, E. Grandin (2021)
Bleeding and thrombotic events in adults supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an ELSO registry analysis
Intensive Care Medicine, 48
P. Simons, Yan Guo, Virginie Bondu, Susan Tigert, M. Harkins, Samuel Goodfellow, Cana Tompkins, D. Chabot-Richards, Xuexian Yang, L. Bosc, Steven Bradfute, D. Lawrence, T. Buranda (2021)
Longitudinal Assessment of Cytokine Expression and Plasminogen Activation in Hantavirus Cardiopulmonary Syndrome Reveals Immune Regulatory Dysfunction in End-Stage Disease
Viruses, 13
Michael Griffin, K. Ashworth, Nathaniel Hill, Jaydra Behren, J. Paola, D. Ku (2021)
Negatively charged nanoparticles of multiple materials inhibit shear-induced platelet accumulation.
Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine
Hongtao Lv, Shubiao Zhang, B. Wang, S. Cui, Jie Yan (2006)
Toxicity of cationic lipids and cationic polymers in gene delivery.
Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 114 1
Anthony Curtas, H. Wood, P. Allaire, J. McDaniel, S. Day, D. Olsen (2002)
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Impeller Designs for the HeartQuest Left Ventricular Assist Device
ASAIO Journal, 48
F. Swieringa, H. Spronk, J. Heemskerk, P. Meijden (2018)
Integrating platelet and coagulation activation in fibrin clot formation
Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 2
E. Chibowski, A. Szcześ (2016)
Zeta potential and surface charge of DPPC and DOPC liposomes in the presence of PLC enzyme
Adsorption, 22
W. Lackington, L. Fleyshman, P. Schweizer, Yvonne Elbs-Glatz, S. Guimond, M. Rottmar (2022)
The response of soft tissue cells to Ti implants is modulated by blood-implant interactions
Materials Today Bio, 15
H. Hashemzadeh, H. Javadi, M. Darvishi (2020)
Study of Structural stability and formation mechanisms in DSPC and DPSM liposomes: A coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulation
Scientific Reports, 10
Selcan Karaz, Erkan Senses (2023)
Liposomes Under Shear: Structure, Dynamics, and Drug Delivery Applications
Advanced NanoBiomed Research
A. Hortelao, S. García-Jimeno, M. Cano-Sarabia, Tania Patiño, D. Maspoch, S. Sánchez (2020)
LipoBots: Using Liposomal Vesicles as Protective Shell of Urease‐Based Nanomotors
Advanced Functional Materials, 30
S. Krishnaswamy (2013)
The transition of prothrombin to thrombin
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 11
M. Bortot, A. Sharifi, K. Ashworth, Faye Walker, Allaura Cox, Katherine Ruegg, Nathan Clendenen, K. Neeves, David Bark, J. Paola (2020)
Pathologic Shear and Elongation Rates Do Not Cause Cleavage of Von Willebrand Factor by ADAMTS13 in a Purified System
Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 13
A. Maruf, Yi Wang, T. Yin, Junli Huang, Nan Wang, C. Durkan, Youhua Tan, Wei Wu, Guixue Wang (2019)
Atherosclerosis Treatment with Stimuli‐Responsive Nanoagents: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives
Advanced Healthcare Materials, 8
Pooja Mittal, H. Vardhan, Gufran Ajmal, G. Bonde, Ramit Kapoor, A. Mittal, B. Mishra (2018)
Formulation, optimization, hemocompatibility and pharmacokinetic evaluation of PLGA nanoparticles containing paclitaxel
Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 45
Chengjun Chen, Shukun Li, Kai Liu, G. Ma, Xuehai Yan (2016)
Co-Assembly of Heparin and Polypeptide Hybrid Nanoparticles for Biomimetic Delivery and Anti-Thrombus Therapy.
Small, 12 34
J. Szebeni (2014)
Complement activation-related pseudoallergy: a stress reaction in blood triggered by nanomedicines and biologicals.
Molecular immunology, 61 2
J. Wolfe, Akankshya Shradhanjali, B. Tefft (2021)
Strategies for improving endothelial cell adhesion to blood-contacting medical devices.
Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews
Kenta Asawa, K. Ishihara, K. Ekdahl, B. Nilsson, Y. Teramura (2021)
Cell Surface Functionalization with Heparin‐Conjugated Lipid to Suppress Blood Activation
Advanced Functional Materials, 31
C. Zylberberg, S. Matosevic (2016)
Pharmaceutical liposomal drug delivery: a review of new delivery systems and a look at the regulatory landscape
Drug Delivery, 23
A. Koster, Y. Weng, W. Böttcher, T. Gromann, H. Kuppe, R. Hetzer (2007)
Successful use of bivalirudin as anticoagulant for ECMO in a patient with acute HIT.
The Annals of thoracic surgery, 83 5
M. Dumantepe, Cuneyd Ozturk (2021)
Acoustic pulse thrombolysis complemented by ECMO improved survival in patients with high‐risk pulmonary embolism
Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 37
Akshita Rana, E. Westein, Be’eri Niego, C. Hagemeyer (2019)
Shear-Dependent Platelet Aggregation: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 6
C. Labarrere, A. Dabiri, G. Kassab (2020)
Thrombogenic and Inflammatory Reactions to Biomaterials in Medical Devices
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8
C. Fisser, Maren Winkler, M. Malfertheiner, A. Philipp, M. Foltan, D. Lunz, F. Zeman, L. Maier, M. Lubnow, T. Müller (2021)
Argatroban versus heparin in patients without heparin-induced thrombocytopenia during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a propensity-score matched study
Critical Care, 25
M. Zamir (1977)
Shear forces and blood vessel radii in the cardiovascular system
The Journal of General Physiology, 69
Fahimeh Zahednezhad, Maryam Saadat, H. Valizadeh, P. Zakeri-Milani, B. Baradaran (2019)
Liposome and immune system interplay: Challenges and potentials.
Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 305
Lauren Casa, D. Deaton, D. Ku (2015)
Role of high shear rate in thrombosis.
Journal of vascular surgery, 61 4
Elisabeth Prince, S. Kheiri, Yihe Wang, Fei Xu, Jennifer Cruikshank, Valentina Topolskaia, Huachen Tao, Edmund Young, A. McGuigan, D. Cescon, E. Kumacheva (2021)
Microfluidic Arrays of Breast Tumor Spheroids for Drug Screening and Personalized Cancer Therapies
Advanced Healthcare Materials, 11
Andrea Gillespie, A. Doctor (2021)
Red Blood Cell Contribution to Hemostasis
Frontiers in Pediatrics, 9
Yi Wang, Avani Pisapati, X. Zhang, Xuanhong Cheng (2021)
Recent Developments in Nanomaterial‐Based Shear‐Sensitive Drug Delivery Systems
Advanced Healthcare Materials, 10
L. Belfiore, D. Saunders, M. Ranson, K. Thurecht, G. Storm, K. Vine (2018)
Towards clinical translation of ligand‐functionalized liposomes in targeted cancer therapy: Challenges and opportunities
Journal of Controlled Release, 277
J. Myerson, Bruce Braender, Olivia Mcpherson, P. Glassman, R. Kiseleva, V. Shuvaev, O. Marcos-Contreras, Martha Grady, Hyun-Su Lee, C. Greineder, R. Stan, R. Composto, D. Eckmann, V. Muzykantov (2018)
Flexible Nanoparticles Reach Sterically Obscured Endothelial Targets Inaccessible to Rigid Nanoparticles
Advanced Materials, 30
(2002)
ASAIO J.
L. Lanotte, Johannes Mauer, S. Mendez, D. Fedosov, Jean-Marc Fromental, Viviana Clavería, F. Nicoud, G. Gompper, M. Abkarian (2016)
Red cells’ dynamic morphologies govern blood shear thinning under microcirculatory flow conditions
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113
S. Vaquer, C. Haro, Paula Peruga, J. Oliva, A. Artigas (2017)
Systematic review and meta-analysis of complications and mortality of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome
Annals of Intensive Care, 7
Netanel Korin, M. Gounis, A. Wakhloo, D. Ingber (2015)
Targeted drug delivery to flow-obstructed blood vessels using mechanically activated nanotherapeutics.
JAMA neurology, 72 1
Netanel Korin, Mathumai Kanapathipillai, Benjamin Matthews, M. Crescente, A. Brill, T. Mammoto, K. Ghosh, Samuel Jurek, S. Bencherif, Deen Bhatta, A. Coskun, C. Feldman, D. Wagner, D. Ingber (2012)
Shear-Activated Nanotherapeutics for Drug Targeting to Obstructed Blood Vessels
Science, 337
A. Bernard, M. Guedeau-Boudeville, V. Marchi-Artzner, T. Gulik-Krzywicki, Jean-Marc Meglio, L. Jullien (2005)
Shear-induced permeation and fusion of lipid vesicles.
Journal of colloid and interface science, 287 1
R. Trigonis, Nikki Smith, Shelley Porter, E. Anderson, M. Jennings, R. Kapoor, C. Hage, S. Moiz, José Garcia, O. Rahman (2021)
Efficacy of Bivalirudin for Therapeutic Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Patients Requiring ECMO Support
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 36
(2019)
, 2; b) A. M. Ruhoﬀ J
Hiroki Kitayama, Y. Takechi, N. Tamai, H. Matsuki, C. Yomota, H. Saito (2014)
Thermotropic phase behavior of hydrogenated soybean phosphatidylcholine-cholesterol binary liposome membrane.
Chemical & pharmaceutical bulletin, 62 1
M. Larsson, Veronika Rayzman, M. Nolte, Katrin Nickel, J. Björkqvist, Anne Jämsä, M. Hardy, Marion Fries, Stefan Schmidbauer, P. Hedenqvist, M. Broomé, I. Pragst, G. Dickneite, Michael Wilson, A. Nash, C. Panousis, T. Renné (2014)
A Factor XIIa Inhibitory Antibody Provides Thromboprotection in Extracorporeal Circulation Without Increasing Bleeding Risk
Science Translational Medicine, 6
Zhong-Jian Chen, Si‐Cong Yang, Xue‐Liang Liu, Yuhao Gao, Xiaowu Dong, Xing Lai, Mao‐Hua Zhu, Hai‐Yi Feng, Xin-Di Zhu, Q. Lu, Mei Zhao, Hong-Zhuan Chen, J. Lovell, Chao Fang (2020)
Nanobowl-Supported Liposomes Improve Drug Loading and Delivery.
Nano letters
S. Soares, J. Sousa, A. Pais, C. Vitorino (2018)
Nanomedicine: Principles, Properties, and Regulatory Issues
Frontiers in Chemistry, 6
Nengpan Zhang, Chunlin Li, Dayong Zhou, Chen Ding, Yaqing Jin, Qingmei Tian, Xiangzhou Meng, Kefeng Pu, Yimin Zhu (2018)
Cyclic RGD functionalized liposomes encapsulating urokinase for thrombolysis.
Acta biomaterialia, 70
Bhuvaneshwar Vaidya, Manasa Nayak, D. Dash, G. Agrawal, S. Vyas (2011)
Development and characterization of site specific target sensitive liposomes for the delivery of thrombolytic agents.
International journal of pharmaceutics, 403 1-2
(2021)
J Pediatr Surg 2011
(2019)
. © 2023 The Authors
I. Jaffer, J. Weitz (2019)
The blood compatibility challenge part 1: Blood-contacting medical devices: The scope of the problem.
Acta biomaterialia
Saeedreza Shirejini, J. Carberry, Z. McQuilten, A. Burrell, S. Gregory, C. Hagemeyer (2023)
Current and future strategies to monitor and manage coagulation in ECMO patients
Thrombosis Journal, 21
E. Roux, P. Bougaran, P. Dufourcq, T. Couffinhal (2020)
Fluid Shear Stress Sensing by the Endothelial Layer
Frontiers in Physiology, 11
S. Groß-Hardt, Felix Hesselmann, J. Arens, U. Steinseifer, L. Vercaemst, W. Windisch, D. Brodie, C. Karagiannidis (2019)
Low-flow assessment of current ECMO/ECCO2R rotary blood pumps and the potential effect on hemocompatibility
Critical Care, 23
P. Trucillo, R. Campardelli, E. Reverchon (2017)
Supercritical CO2 assisted liposomes formation: Optimization of the lipidic layer for an efficient hydrophilic drug loading
Journal of CO 2 Utilization, 18
H. Zafar, F. Sharif, M. Leahy (2014)
Measurement of the blood flow rate and velocity in coronary artery stenosis using intracoronary frequency domain optical coherence tomography: Validation against fractional flow reserve
International Journal of Cardiology. Heart & Vasculature, 5
Yun Liu, Guangze Yang, Yue Hui, Supun Ranaweera, Chun‐Xia Zhao (2022)
Microfluidic Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery.
Small
K. Wood, B. Ayers, I. Gošev, Neil Kumar, Amber Melvin, B. Barrus, S. Prasad (2020)
Venoarterial-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Without Routine Systemic Anticoagulation Decreases Adverse Events
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
C. Hagemeyer, K. Peter (2010)
Targeting the platelet integrin GPIIb/IIIa.
Current pharmaceutical design, 16 37
(2021)
in Functional Lipid Nanosystems in Cancer
M. Buscema, S. Matviykiv, T. Mészáros, Gabriela Gerganova, Andreas Weinberger, U. Mettal, Dennis Mueller, Frederik Neuhaus, Etienne Stalder, T. Ishikawa, R. Urbanics, T. Saxer, T. Pfohl, J. Szebeni, A. Zumbuehl, B. Müller (2017)
Immunological response to nitroglycerin‐loaded shear‐responsive liposomes in vitro and in vivo
Journal of Controlled Release, 264
Jibin Guan, Hong Guo, Tang Tang, Yihan Wang, Yushuang Wei, P. Seth, Yingming Li, S. Dehm, E. Ruoslahti, Hong‐Bo Pang (2021)
iRGD-liposomes enhance tumor delivery and therapeutic efficacy of antisense oligonucleotide drugs against primary prostate cancer and bone metastasis
bioRxiv
J. Sharifi‐Rad, F. Sharopov, S. Ezzat, W. Zam, A. Ademiluyi, O. Oyeniran, C. Adetunji, Osahon Roli, J. Živković, M. Martorell, A. Docea, Nasreddine Omari, A. Bouyahya, J. Lorenzo, D. Calina (2023)
An Updated Review on Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors as Antiplatelet Agents: Basic and Clinical Perspectives
High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention, 30
Meili Zhang, J. Pauls, N. Bartnikowski, A. Haymet, C. Chan, J. Suen, Bailey Schneider, Katrina Ki, A. Whittaker, M. Dargusch, J. Fraser (2021)
Anti-thrombogenic Surface Coatings for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Narrative Review.
ACS biomaterials science & engineering
Yu Huang, Li Yu, Jie Ren, Boram Gu, C. Longstaff, A. Hughes, S. Thom, X. Xu, Rongjun Chen (2019)
An activated-platelet-sensitive nanocarrier enables targeted delivery of tissue plasminogen activator for effective thrombolytic therapy.
Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 300
Alexandra Abruzzo, V. Gorantla, Sneha Thomas (2022)
Venous thromboembolic events in the setting of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in adults: A systematic review.
Thrombosis research, 212
R. Slack, S. Macdonald, J. Roper, R. Jenkins, R. Hatley (2021)
Emerging therapeutic opportunities for integrin inhibitors
Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 21
C. Tapeinos, A. Larrañaga, F. Tomatis, J. Bizeau, Attilio Marino, M. Battaglini, A. Pandit, G. Ciofani (2019)
Advanced Functional Materials and Cell‐Based Therapies for the Treatment of Ischemic Stroke and Postischemic Stroke Effects
Advanced Functional Materials, 30
Yongseok Hong, Hyoyoung Jeong, K. Cho, N. Lu, Dae‐Hyeong Kim (2019)
Wearable and Implantable Devices for Cardiovascular Healthcare: from Monitoring to Therapy Based on Flexible and Stretchable Electronics
Advanced Functional Materials, 29
C. Chan, Michael Simmonds, K. Fraser, Kosuke Igarashi, Katrina Ki, Tomotaka Murashige, M. Joseph, J. Fraser, G. Tansley, N. Watanabe (2021)
Discrete responses of erythrocytes, platelets, and von Willebrand factor to shear.
Journal of biomechanics, 130
S. Heuts, Maged Makhoul, Abdulrahman Mansouri, F. Taccone, A. Obeid, M. Belliato, L. Broman, M. Malfertheiner, P. Meani, G. Raffa, T. Delnoij, J. Maessen, G. Bolotin, R. Lorusso (2021)
Defining and understanding the “extra‐corporeal membrane oxygenation gap” in the veno‐venous configuration: Timing and causes of death
Artificial Organs, 46
D. Bark, D. Ku (2010)
Wall shear over high degree stenoses pertinent to atherothrombosis.
Journal of biomechanics, 43 15
G. Fuchs, Niclas Berg, L. Broman, L. Wittberg (2018)
Flow-induced platelet activation in components of the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit
Scientific Reports, 8
(2020)
Thoracic Surge
Michele Jen, M. Serrano, R. Lith, G. Ameer (2012)
Polymer‐Based Nitric Oxide Therapies: Recent Insights for Biomedical Applications
Advanced Functional Materials, 22
C. Gachet, C. Gachet (2015)
Antiplatelet drugs: which targets for which treatments?
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 13
(2019)
B. J. Teﬀt
Salman Sohrabi, Yaling Liu (2017)
A Cellular Model of Shear‐Induced Hemolysis
Artificial Organs, 41
Caroline Cheng, F. Helderman, D. Tempel, D. Segers, B. Hierck, R. Poelmann, A. Tol, D. Duncker, D. Robbers‐Visser, N. Ursem, R. Haperen, J. Wentzel, F. Gijsen, A. Steen, R. Crom, R. Krams (2007)
Large variations in absolute wall shear stress levels within one species and between species.
Atherosclerosis, 195 2
J. Kizhakkedathu, E. Conway (2021)
Biomaterial and cellular implants:foreign surfaces where immunity and coagulation meet.
Blood
(1977)
29, 399; d) M. Zamir
N. Kaur, Purvi Mathur, Pranjali Yadav, Swaroop Chakraborty, A. Shanavas (2020)
Glycol chitosan in situ coating on PLGA nanoparticle curtails extraneous paclitaxel precipitates and imparts protein corona independent hemocompatibility.
Carbohydrate polymers, 237
K. Shibata, T. Hashimoto, T. Miyazaki, A. Miyazaki, K. Nobe (2019)
Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Past and Future.
Current pharmaceutical design, 25 3
Brian Selgrade, G. Truskey (2012)
Computational fluid dynamics analysis to determine shear stresses and rates in a centrifugal left ventricular assist device.
Artificial organs, 36 4
Camilla Albertsen, J. Kulkarni, D. Witzigmann, Marianne Lind, K. Petersson, J. Simonsen (2022)
The role of lipid components in lipid nanoparticles for vaccines and gene therapy
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 188
Daniel Ricklin, John Lambris (2007)
Complement-targeted therapeutics
Nature Biotechnology, 25
Upendra Bulbake, Sindhu Doppalapudi, Nagavendra Kommineni, Wahid Khan (2017)
Liposomal Formulations in Clinical Use: An Updated Review
Pharmaceutics, 9
Saeedreza Shirejini, A. Mohammadi (2017)
Halogen–Lithium Exchange Reaction Using an Integrated Glass Microfluidic Device: An Optimized Synthetic Approach
Organic Process Research & Development, 21
P. Paolisso, L. Bergamaschi, E. D’Angelo, F. Donati, M. Giannella, S. Tedeschi, R. Pascale, M. Bartoletti, Giulia Tesini, M. Biffi, B. Cosmi, C. Pizzi, P. Viale, N. Galiè (2020)
Preliminary Experience With Low Molecular Weight Heparin Strategy in COVID-19 Patients
Frontiers in Pharmacology, 11
B. Ballermann, A. Dardik, E. Eng, Ailian Liu (1998)
Shear stress and the endothelium.
Kidney international. Supplement, 67
Christopher Molloy, Yu Yao, H. Kammoun, Thomas Bonnard, Thomas Hoefer, Karen Alt, Francisco Tovar-Lopez, Gary Rosengarten, P. Ramsland, Andries van, der Meer, Albert Berg, Andrew Murphy, C. Hagemeyer, Karlheinz, Peter, E. Westein (2017)
Shear‐sensitive nanocapsule drug release for site‐specific inhibition of occlusive thrombus formation
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 15
M. Gorbet, M. Sefton (2004)
Biomaterial-associated thrombosis: roles of coagulation factors, complement, platelets and leukocytes.
Biomaterials, 25 26
Alexander Ruhoff, Jun Hong, Lingzi Gao, J. Singh, Clara Tran, Grace Mackie, Anna Waterhouse (2021)
Biomaterial Wettability Affects Fibrin Clot Structure and Fibrinolysis
Advanced Healthcare Materials, 10
M. Holme, G. Schulz, H. Deyhle, T. Weitkamp, F. Beckmann, J. Lobrinus, Farhad Rikhtegar, V. Kurtcuoglu, I. Zanette, T. Saxer, B. Müller (2014)
Complementary X-ray tomography techniques for histology-validated 3D imaging of soft and hard tissues using plaque-containing blood vessels as examples
Nature Protocols, 9
T. Saxer, A. Zumbuehl, B. Müller (2013)
The use of shear stress for targeted drug delivery.
Cardiovascular research, 99 2
Durgaramani Sivadasan, M. Sultan, O. Madkhali, Shahd Alsabei, Asia Alessa (2022)
Stealth Liposomes (PEGylated) Containing an Anticancer Drug Camptothecin: In Vitro Characterization and In Vivo Pharmacokinetic and Tissue Distribution Study
Molecules, 27
S. Rahman, A. Fogelson, V. Hlady (2020)
Effects of elapsed time on downstream platelet adhesion following transient exposure to elevated upstream shear forces.
Colloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces, 193
T. Hoefer, Akshita Rana, Be’eri Niego, S. Jagdale, Hugo Albers, E. Gardiner, R. Andrews, A. Meer, C. Hagemeyer, E. Westein (2020)
Targeting shear gradient activated von Willebrand factor by the novel single-chain antibody A1 reduces occlusive thrombus formation in vitro
Haematologica, 106
K. Shimizu, Y. Takeuchi, Kazuma Otsuka, T. Mori, Yudai Narita, Shohei Takasugi, Y. Magata, Y. Matsumura, N. Oku (2020)
Development of tissue factor-targeted liposomes for effective drug delivery to stroma-rich tumors.
Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society
Jae-Ho Lee, Hyuntaek Oh, U. Baxa, S. Raghavan, R. Blumenthal (2012)
Biopolymer-connected liposome networks as injectable biomaterials capable of sustained local drug delivery.
Biomacromolecules, 13 10
J. Ladisa, Arash Ghorbannia, D. Marks, Peter Mason, H. Otake (2022)
Advancements and Opportunities in Characterizing Patient-Specific Wall Shear Stress Imposed by Coronary Artery Stenting
Fluids
Alina Zenych, Charlene Jacqmarcq, R. Aid, L. Fournier, L. Ramirez, F. Chaubet, T. Bonnard, D. Vivien, D. Letourneur, C. Chauvierre (2021)
Fucoidan-functionalized polysaccharide submicroparticles loaded with alteplase for efficient targeted thrombolytic therapy.
Biomaterials, 277
S. Moghimi, Z. Farhangrazi (2013)
Nanomedicine and the complement paradigm.
Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine, 9 4
Hongbin Zhang, J. Jackson, M. Chiao (2017)
Microfabricated Drug Delivery Devices: Design, Fabrication, and Applications
Advanced Functional Materials, 27
V. Raghav, Ikechukwu Okafor, Michael Quach, Lynn Dang, S. Marquez, A. Yoganathan (2016)
Long-Term Durability of Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease Valve: A One Billion Cycle In Vitro Study.
The Annals of thoracic surgery, 101 5
Manli Zhou, Yunfeng Yu, Ruiyi Chen, Xingci Liu, Yilei Hu, Zhiyan Ma, Lingwei Gao, W. Jian, Liping Wang (2023)
Wall shear stress and its role in atherosclerosis
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 10
Zhiyuan Ma, Baicheng Li, Jie Peng, Dan Gao (2022)
Recent Development of Drug Delivery Systems through Microfluidics: From Synthesis to Evaluation
Pharmaceutics, 14
Y. Zhao, Yingqi Zhang, Zihao Wang, Fengtao Jiang, Kiarash Kyanian, S. Aye, Tianbo Hong, Parham Vatankhah, Arian Nasser, Allan Sun, Laura Moldovan, Q. Su, Ann-Na Cho, Yao Wang, F. Passam, T. Ang, L. Ju (2023)
Novel Movable Typing for Personalized Vein‐Chips in Large Scale: Recapitulate Patient‐Specific Virchow's Triad and its Contribution to Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Advanced Functional Materials, 33
C. Weber, A. Deppe, A. Sabashnikov, I. Slottosch, E. Kuhn, K. Eghbalzadeh, M. Scherner, Yeong-Hoon Choi, N. Madershahian, T. Wahlers (2018)
Left ventricular thrombus formation in patients undergoing femoral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Perfusion, 33
S. Yao, Meili Shen, S. Li, Xiao Wu, M. Zhang, Li Ma, Ya Li (2019)
Application of a mechanically responsive, inflammatory macrophage-targeted dual-sensitive hydrogel drug carrier for atherosclerosis.
Colloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces, 186

Publisher: Wiley
Copyright: © 2023 Wiley‐VCH GmbH
ISSN: 1616-301X
eISSN: 1616-3028
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202303717
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

IntroductionBlood‐contacting medical devices including stents, catheters, heart valves, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, such as left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) have been widely used to treat various diseases (Figure 1).[1] Blood‐contacting devices have varying durations of use, with different devices used for varying amounts of time. Typically, dialysis and CPB circuits are used for only a few hours, whereas ECMO and catheters are used for several weeks to months.[2] In contrast, stents and heart valves are intended to remain in place for many years, and typically for the duration of a person's life. The duration of LVAD implantation varies from a few weeks to several years, depending on whether the device is intended to serve as a bridge to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy. Regardless of the device's characteristics or length of use, it is inevitable that a foreign surface will meet the blood and high shear stress in those devices due to the high local blood velocity and narrowed blood flow area, potentially leading to the formation of thrombosis or immune responses. One of the major complications and a common cause of death for medical devices is thrombosis complications, such as ischemic stroke, right ventricular thrombus,[3] left ventricular thrombus,[4] pulmonary embolism [5] and bleeding.[6] In particular, it has been reported that the bleeding rate during ECMO is 20.8%–39.6% [6b,7] with the cannula site (13.2%), gastrointestinal tract (5.5%), lungs (6.1%), and central nervous system (3.9%) being the most prevalent sites,[8] while thrombosis formation occurs in 10%–46.1% of patients depending on the circuit type and age of the patient in various centers.[9] Antithrombotic agents are commonly used to prevent thrombosis in blood‐contacting medical devices. However, the administration of these agents can lead to a systematic anticoagulant effect in the patient, thereby increasing bleeding complications. Therefore, additional techniques required to prevent thrombosis formation in medical devices without increasing the risk of bleeding complications.1FigureExamples of medical devices. A) Angioplasty stent. B) Central venous catheter. C) Heart valve. D) LVAD. E) and F) membrane oxygenator and centrifugal pump, respectively, as the main components of ECMO and CPB. Figure created with BioRender.com.Shear‐responsive liposomes are a type of nanomedicine designed to respond to variations in shear stress. Liposomes are lenticular or spherical structures composed of phospholipids bilayer that can encapsulate drugs and other compounds. Conventional liposomes are relatively stable under shear stresses in normal physiological blood flow conditions. However, when exposed to high levels of shear stress, such as those found in medical devices, conventional liposomes can rupture and lose their contents. Importantly, this process occurs in an uncontrolled manner, rendering it challenging to manage. Shear‐responsive liposomes, on the other hand, are made from a combination of lipids and polymers that are chosen to give the liposomes specific mechanical properties that allow them to respond to specific levels of shear stress in a more controlled and targeted manner.[10] This makes them more flexible and resistant to high shear stress, and also allows them to release their contents in response to changes in shear stress at a certain threshold. Shear‐responsive liposomes have been proposed as a promising solution to prevent thrombosis in medical devices. These liposomes burst and release an antithrombotic agent at the site of high shear stress, decreasing the drug dosage required to prevent thrombosis and bleeding while increasing the drug's circulation time inside the body.[11]This article will focus on the potential application of shear‐responsive nanomedicines to prevent thrombosis and reduce the bleeding complications in medical devices. To have a better understanding of the influence of the shear stress on thrombosis formation, the mechanism of platelet activation and thrombosis formation under shear stress is thoroughly discussed. Then, we explore the potential of shear‐responsive liposomes in preventing thrombosis and bleeding in medical devices. The article will review the current literature on the use of shear‐responsive liposomes and discuss their advantages and limitations. Additionally, we will discuss the current challenges and future directions for improving the stability of the shear‐responsive liposomes in medical devices and their potential applications in clinical settings. In particular, Figure 2 depicts the use of shear sensitive nanoparticles in the context of ECMO to illustrate the practical application of shear‐responsive nanoparticles.2FigureIllustration of nanoparticle rupturing in ECMO setup. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is a temporary support system for critically ill patients. The ECMO circuit comprises a blood pump, an oxygenator, tubing set, and two cannulas. The blood is propelled through the tubing set and the oxygenator, where it undergoes gas exchange to remove carbon dioxide and add oxygen. The ECMO pump generates the necessary blood flow to maintain perfusion and support vital organ function, while various monitoring devices track patient hemodynamic and oxygenation. Figure created with BioRender.com.Biomaterial and Shear Stress‐Induced ThrombosisAccording to Virchow's triad, thrombosis is triggered by a variety of factors, including hypercoagulability, medical device materials, and hemodynamic parameters (high shear stress/high residence time.[12] Non‐biocompatible circuit surfaces, such as those made from synthetic materials, can trigger an immune response and promote platelet adhesion, aggregation, and ultimately thrombosis formation.[13] In addition, high shear stress and intensive blood flow regions, and prolonged blood contact time with medical devices, especially those in MCS, further contribute to these complications. These thrombi can obstruct blood flow across the circuit and harm blood vessels and organs. Thrombosis can form in the medical devices and embolize to other parts of the body, such as the lungs or brain, resulting in serious complications including stroke and pulmonary embolism, as well as organ damage.[14]Biomaterial thrombosis is the process by which a thrombus forms on the surface of a biomaterial, such as a medical device component surface (Figure 3).[15] This phenomenon can occur due to the foreign body effect of the biomaterial and the activation of the haemostatic pathways, including platelet activation, coagulation activation, and the immune response.[16] The interactions between these pathways and the biomaterial surface are influenced by various factors, including the presence of plasma proteins, such as fibrinogen, high molecular weight kininogen (HMWK), Pre‐kallikrein (PK), Factor XII (FXII), complement proteins, von Willebrand factor (vWF), immunoglobulins, and tissue factor (TF).[17] The surface of the biomaterial activates platelets, leading to the initial adhesion of platelets to the biomaterial surface. This process is mediated by the exposure of vWF and other adhesive molecules, such as collagen and glycoprotein VI (GPVI), on biomaterial surface.[18] Platelet activation triggers the release of platelet granules, including adenosine diphosphate (ADP), which further stimulates platelet activation and aggregation. The activation of platelets and the exposure of vWF on the biomaterial surface also initiates the coagulation cascade, leading to the formation of a fibrin mesh that provides structural support for the blood clot. This process is mediated by the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin, which in turn cleaves fibrinogen to form fibrin.[19] The activation of platelets and the presence of a foreign body also triggers an inflammatory response, which contributes to thrombosis by promoting the adhesion and activation of leukocytes, which release cytokines and other proinflammatory molecules.[20] Platelets continue to aggregate and accumulate on the biomaterial surface, strengthening the blood clot. This process is mediated by the binding of fibrin to the platelets, which functions as a bridge between the platelets and the biomaterial surface. The accumulation of platelets and fibrin on the biomaterial surface forms a thrombus.[21]3FigureDiagram illustrating interplay between platelet activation and coagulation cascade. The image on the left depicts the coagulation cascade, which includes the contact (intrinsic) and tissue factor (extrinsic) pathways that lead to the common pathway that results in thrombosis. The diagram on the right depicts the activation of platelets and their interaction with the coagulation cascade to form thrombosis. TXA2: Thromboxane A2; ADP: Adenosine diphosphate; GPVI: Glycoprotein VI; GPIb‐IX‐V: Glycoprotein GPIb‐IX‐V; VWF: Von Willebrand factor; TF: Tissue factor. Figure created with BioRender.com.Platelet function can be greatly affected by fluid dynamics in medical devices. Shear stress is defined as the force per unit area between layers of materials in contact, and has been identified as the main mechanical force that determines platelet‐mediated haemostasis and thrombosis.[22] Shear stress is typically measured in units of pascals (Pa) or dynes per square centimeter (dyn/cm2). Shear rate, on the other hand, refers to the rate at which adjacent layers of fluid are moving relative to each other. In other words, Shear rate refers to the velocity gradient of a fluid as it moves along a surface and describes how fast the fluid is flowing. Shear rate is typically measured in units of reciprocal seconds (s−1). Activation of platelets by high shears and the artificial surface of the medical devices have been proposed as the main causes of coagulopathy in patients.[23] Hence, it is vital to understand the function of platelets as the main cause of coagulopathy in patients with medical devices. This is because the interactions between platelet receptors and ligands, such as fibrinogen and vWF, are highly shear‐dependent.[24]VWF is a protein that is involved in blood coagulation and plays an important role in the formation of blood clots. Under high shear rates, the mechanical force of the flowing blood causes vWF to undergo conformational changes, which alter its shape and structure. These changes result in the elongation of vWF, exposing the A1 domain. The A1 domain is the site where vWF binds to the platelet glycoprotein receptor Ib (GPIb). This binding allows the platelets to adhere to the blood vessel wall and initiate the formation of a clot. The exposure of the A1 domain and the subsequent binding of vWF to the platelets under high shear rates can increase the risk of thrombosis. This can lead to the occlusion of the blood vessels and medical devices and the subsequent formation of a thrombus. Moreover, under high shear stress conditions, the mechanical force of the flowing blood can cause erythrocytes to deform and become more elongated in shape. This deformation can cause the erythrocytes to become more adhesive, which can increase the risk of thrombosis. Low shear stress can cause the erythrocytes to aggregate and form rouleaux,[25] which increases the blood viscosity and consequently the shear stress that blood experiencing while under high shear stress these aggregates disintegrate and red blood cells (RBCs) may change shape to align with the flow direction, resulting in a reduction in viscosity via a process known as shear thinning.[26] In addition, the deformation of erythrocytes under high shear stress can cause them to release haemoglobin, which can interact with other blood components and contribute to the clot formation.[27]Conventional Methods for Preventing Thrombosis and Bleeding in Medical DevicesHealthcare providers use different strategies to manage the risk of thrombosis and bleeding complications in medical devices, depending on the patient's condition. While heparin is the most used anticoagulant for patients using medical devices, it is associated with serious adverse problems including Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and heparin resistance. Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia can lead to the formation of blood clots, which can be dangerous and even life‐threatening if they occur in the lungs, heart, or brain.[28] Heparin resistance is a term used to describe the condition in which a patient does not respond to therapeutic levels of heparin.[29] HIT and heparin resistance can be managed by using alternative anticoagulants, such as argatroban [28] or bivalirudin [30] but they can also show anticoagulant resistance requiring dose escalation. Factor XII inhibitors are promising anticoagulant agents that are currently under investigation in animal models, yet further approvals are required for their applications in human.[31] Moreover, utilizing low‐dosage anticoagulation is another strategy that has been used in clinical settings to reduce bleeding problems while thrombosis formation is still a concern.[32] Additionally, the concept of an anticoagulant‐free method, which involves coating the medical devices with biocompatible substances to prevent blood clotting, is being researched as an alternative, however it's still under investigation and not yet widely available or proven to be as safe and effective as traditional anticoagulation methods in medical devices and may not be appropriate for all patient populations.[33]Novel Shear‐Responsive Drug Delivery SystemsDespite the existence of various methods aimed at reducing thrombosis and bleeding complications in medical devices, there is still a need for more effective ways to lower the incidence of these issues. The use of shear‐responsive drug delivery systems has the potential to improve the efficiency and specificity of drug delivery, as the release of the drug can be precisely controlled in response to changes in shear stress.[34] Shear‐responsive drug delivery systems refer to a class of drug delivery systems that are designed to respond to shear stress gradient, which is the force exerted on a fluid as it flows through a surface, such as blood flowing through a vessel or the blood flow within the medical devices. These systems are typically made up of a carrier, such as a nanoparticle or micelle, that contains the drug, and a shear‐responsive coating or shell that surrounds the carrier. When these systems are introduced into a flowing liquid, such as blood, the shear stress on the coating or shell causes it to change its properties, such as its shape or surface charge, which in turn affects the release of the drug from the carrier.[35]Shear‐responsive drug delivery systems rely on the reversible material deformation or disaggregation to elicit drug release.[36] In cardiovascular systems, shear stress is generated by the blood flow as it moves through the blood vessels. The range of shear stress in cardiovascular systems can vary depending on the location and size of the blood vessel, as well as the velocity and viscosity of the blood flow. Moreover, occlusion of the vessels due to cardiovascular diseases such as atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and embolism will induce higher shear stress to the flowing blood [37] providing the opportunity of localized vasodilators [38] and antithrombotic [39] drug delivery.[40] In particular, atherosclerosis is a common vascular disease that increases the risk of thrombosis by inducing shear stress at plaques.[41] Shear‐responsive nanoparticles are a promising therapeutic approach for the treatment of atherosclerosis; however, the heterogeneity of lesions poses a significant challenge for the design of effective therapies, as various types of lesions can exist in the same patient under varying levels of shear stress.[42] To overcome this challenge, shear‐responsive liposomes can be designed to target various types of lesions with varying shear stress levels. Alternately, nanoparticles may be functionalized with antibodies or other ligands that selectively bind to specific cell types or molecular markers associated with various types of lesions, thereby facilitating the targeted delivery of therapeutic agents to regions of high shear stress or specific lesion types.The shear stress threshold differs among pathological environments and medical devices. In the arterial system, the shear stress is relatively high due to the high blood flow and the relatively small diameter of the vessels (10–20 dyn cm−2). The peak shear stress occurs near the vessel wall, where the blood is moving at its fastest, and decreases as the distance from the wall increases. In contrast, the venous system has lower blood flow and larger diameter vessels, resulting in lower shear stress (1–6 dyn cm−2).[43] Shear stress inside healthy vasculature ranges from 0.1 to 7 pa (1‐− 70 dyn cm−2 [44] whereas it is in the range of 150–1000 dyn cm2 in constricted coronary arteries.[45] In MCS, the shear stress range is typically 1000 to 6000 dyn cm−2 depending on the blood flow rate that varies in neonates and adult patients.[46] The typical range of shear stress in pathological conditions and medical devices presented in Table 1.1TableTypical blood flow properties of blood‐contacting medical devices and human anatomyWall shear stress [dyn cm−2]Wall shear strain rate [s−1]Ref.Physiological/pathological situationStenotic vessels30–3501000–10 000[47]Coronary artery10–55300–1500[48]Aortic valve3–30100–1000[49]Venules1–4020–1500[50]Medical devicesECMO3000–400080 000–120 000[46a,51]LVAD4000–6000120 000–150 000[52]Prosthetic heart valve160–20005000–60 000[53]Coronary stent20–100600–3000[50a,54]There are several types of shear‐responsive nanocarriers including nanogels,[55] polymeric nanoparticles,[56] inorganic nanoparticles,[57] and liposomes.[58] Among those, liposomes are widely used in targeted drug delivery, gene therapy, and vaccine development due to their ease of preparation, biocompatibility and biodegradability.[59] Shear‐responsive liposomes are small, spherical structures composed of a phospholipid bilayer that mimic the structure of cells and encapsulate a hydrophilic core. Liposomes are one of the most used nanocarriers for the encapsulation of thrombolytic drugs and other medicines. By encapsulating drugs, liposomes can protect them from enzymatic degradation and increase their half‐life, resulting in improved selectivity and targeted delivery to the site of thrombus. Consequently, the use of nanocarriers can boost the efficacy of antithrombotic drugs such as antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and thrombolytics.[60]Typically, there are two different methods introduced for delivering antithrombotic agents including nanoparticles deformation [58] and nanoparticle disaggregation (Figure 4).[39] The first technique employs lipid nanoparticles, which can release their content drugs in response to various shear stresses, while in second method, shear stress can shatter the micron‐sized nanoparticle aggregates, allowing the released nanoparticles to stick to the surface of injury. To minimize the contact surface between water and the hydrophobic area of the liposomes, they normally create spherical shapes with a specific range of shear sensitivity, so that their membrane disrupts in shear ranges greater than 400 dyn cm−2.[36b] This is ideal for usage in medical devices since the shear stress in medical devices exceeds this range. However, since shear stress inside the body is less than this level, this could limit their use in in vivo experiments without medical devices. In this situation, non‐spherical (lentil) particles can be used to modify the shear sensitivity of liposomes so that their membrane can be disrupted and the drug within them can be released under a wide range of shear stress, therefore resolving the problem.[38,61] Table 2 summarizes the shear stress range and test exposure time, payload, carrier composition and size, and the type of experimental methods of different shear‐responsive liposomal drug delivery systems.4FigureNanoparticle drug carriers for thrombosis prevention and the mechanism of action of targeted liposomes (left A‐E). Demonstration of nanoparticles dissociation under high shear stress region (right). The graph on the right depicts how nanoparticles dissociate in regions of high shear stress. Micron‐sized nanoparticle aggregates dissociate and release antithrombotic drug‐encapsulated or coated nanoparticles in areas of high shear stress, such as narrowed blood vessels or components in medical devices (e.g., stent, pump, membrane oxygenator, and cannula) (right top). Targeted drug‐loaded nanoparticles can deliver the drug to high shear stress zones where thrombosis forms and release the drug based on the drug release efficiency of nanoparticles (right bottom). Figure created with BioRender.com.2TableExamples of shear‐responsive nanomedicine drug delivery systemsType of drug carrierShear stress/shear rateTest exposure timePayloadCarrier compositionCarrier sizeExperimental setupRef.Nanoparticles2–40 Pa40 passes5(6)‐carboxyfluorescein and rhodamine DOPE (rho‐DOPE)EggPC, Pad–PC–Pad, DPPC100 nmIn vitro (extracorporeal pump flow setup)[36b]1500 s−14 hDoxorubicin (DOX), irinotecan, vincristineComposition1: HSPC, Cholesterol, mPEG2000‐DSPE; Composition2: DSPC, Cholesterol, mPEG2000‐DSPE; Composition3: Egg SM and cholesterol150 nmIn vivo (mice model)[62]0–10000 s−120 min under shearWater‐soluble solutionsEPC and Brij 7650–400 nmIn vitro (Couette viscometer)[61]75012 min5(6)‐carboxyfluoresceinDOPC and DOPC/DSPC‐PEG130–140 nmIn vitro (Cone‐and‐plate viscometer)[58]0–40000 s−110 passes5(6)‐carboxyfluorescein and eptifibatideEPC and Brij 76200 nmIn vivo (ice model) and In vitro (microfluidics)[63]10 Pa24–48 hheparinthiolated poly‐L‐lysine (PLL)160–230 nm NP on RBCIn vivo (mice model)[64]1–150 Pa2 minDoxorubicin (DOX)N‐(carbonylmethoxypolyethylene glycol 2000)‐1,2‐distearoyl‐sn‐glycero3‐phosphoethanolamine sodium salt (MPEG‐DSPE), hydrogenated soy phosphatidylcholine (HSPC), and cholesterol100−150 nmIn vitro (Cone‐and‐plate viscometer)[35]7800 s−10–180 min5(6)‐carboxyfluoresceinPOPC, POPG and cholesterol149 nmIn vitro (microtubes and peristaltic pump)[65]Nanoparticle aggregates>10 Pa3 passesCoated with rtPAPLGA4 µm (aggregates) and 200 nm of NPIn vivo (rabbitcarotid artery occlusion model)[34]100 000 s−1 (100 Pa)1–10 minsCoated with tPAPLGA3.8 µm (aggregates) and 180 nm of NPIn vivo (mice model) and In vitro (rheometer and microfluidics)[39]Shear‐Responsive Nanoparticle DeformationShear‐responsive nanoparticle deformation is the alteration of the shape and structure of nanoparticles in response to shear forces, and it is being investigated as a potential method of controlling drug release in response to variations in blood flow. Holme et al. [36b] classified nanoparticles based on their drug release properties, with natural phospholipids in liquid state, such as EggPC (EPC) being leaky under static condition and shear stress, while natural vesicles in the gel state including Dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) and N‐palmitoyl‐D‐erythro‐sphingosyl‐phosphorylcholine (16:0 SM) do not release their cargo in either static or shear‐induced circumstances. They synthesized Pad–PC–Pad, a lenticular artificial phospholipid that is stable under static conditions but releases cargo (5(6)‐carboxyfluorescein) at elevated shear stress. It is also stated that lenticular shape of the liposomes is responsible for their sensitivity to shear stress that results in favored breaking points along the equator inside the body or external high shear stress areas. They also utilized an extracorporeal circulation pump to investigate the effect of the number of passes on the drug release properties of nanoparticles exposed to shear stress. They found that Pad–PC–Pad nanoparticles were shear sensitive and released their content under high shear stress conditions due to shear‐induced transient pore formation. There was a clear distinction in drug release between healthy and constricted models using Pad–PC–Pad, while no significant difference was observed in dye‐loaded EPC nanoparticles.Further investigations were conducted to explore the impact of shear rate, surfactant‐to‐lipid molar ratio, lipid composition, and PEGylation of liposomes on the shear‐induced leakage and fusion of lipid nanoparticles. The researchers developed a method to control membrane permeability and morphology of unilamellar lipid vesicles with varying sizes under shear stress using nonionic surfactant (Brij 76).[61] They investigated the effect of vesicle size (50–400 nm), shear rate, and surfactant‐to‐lipid molar ratio on shear‐induced leakage and fusion of lipid nanoparticles. Their findings demonstrate that introducing a small amount of detergent in EPC suspension induces leakage of hydrophilic species through the membrane in a dose‐dependent manner, while no significant leakage is observed without detergent. Increasing the shear rate up to a threshold level enhances the leakage rate, due to the higher collision frequency between vesicles and increased Brij 76 concentration at vesicle poles. Furthermore, they utilized a Couette viscometer to expose the lipid vesicles to shearing for 20 min under various shear rates (0–10000 s−1). They observed that smaller unilamellar vesicles are less sensitive to shear stress than larger ones, and that leakage gradually increases with shearing time as demonstrated by UV absorbance results. In another study, Fujie and Yoshimoto examined the release rate of 5(6)‐carboxyfluorescein dye from PEGylated liposomes using two different liposome compositions.[55] The impact of shear stress on PEGylated liposomes was studied using a cone‐and‐plate viscometer. The results indicate that dye release rises with time, peaks after 3 min, and then remains constant at a shear rate of 750 s−1. PEGylation increases dye release from liposomes, as compared to non‐PEGylated DOPC nanoparticles.Natsume and Yoshimoto highly synthesized shear‐responsive liposome nanoparticles with lipid membrane composed of 1‐Palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine (POPC), 1‐palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphoglycerol (POPG) and cholesterol (in a molar ratio of 50:20:30). Glucose oxidase (GO) and catalase were loaded into the liposomes to initiate the catalytic oxidation of glucose and evaluate the shear sensitivity of the nanoparticles. To determine the enzyme activity, GO and catalase encapsulated liposomes were introduced into a glucose solution. Laminar shear flow was generated at relatively high shear rates (≈7800 s−1) using microtubes with inner diameters of 190 and 380 µm equipped with a peristaltic pump (Figure 5A). The results revealed that the encapsulated liposomes were monodispersed (polydispersity index (PI) = 0.062) with a mean diameter of 150 nm (Figure 5B). In static conditions, liposomal GO had low reactivity due to the significant penetration resistance of lipid membranes to substrate molecules. However, the glucose conversion rate increased with time (0–180 min) and shear rate (0–7800 s−1) (Figure 5C), which demonstrated the shear sensitivity of the liposomal GO.[65]5FigureA) The schematic diagram depicting the reactor system comprising a quartz cuvette housing containing liposomes encapsulating GO and catalase, and an external liquid circulation system with four parallel microtubes. The illustration depicts the distribution of liquid velocity (u) and shear rate (γ) within the microtubes. B) This figure demonstrates the effect of shearing on the size distribution of liposomes with an initial diameter of 150 nm. The experiment was carried out at a temperature of 25 °C and a shear rate of 7800 s−1 for a duration of 1000 s. C) Shows the fractional conversion of glucose over time for the liposomal GO‐catalase system at various average shear rates, compared to a micellar enzyme system. Reproduced with permission.[65] Copyright 2014, ACS Publications.Chen et al. have developed a drug delivery system based on nanobowls, which are nanoparticles characterized by a bowl‐like shape, with a hollow center and an outer liposomal shell. These nanobowls can be loaded with drugs and then released in a controlled manner to target cells or tissues in the body. The incorporation of nanobowls in the water cavity of the liposome structure improves the stability of liposomes in the blood circulation, preventing drug leakage induced by plasma proteins and blood flow shear stress. This will result in enhanced drug delivery to tumor sites (Figure 6A). In comparison to conventional liposomes, it has been demonstrated that adopting Doxorubicin (DOX)‐loaded nanobowl liposomes improves encapsulation efficiency and reduces drug leakage (Figure 6B). Moreover, in vivo experiments in mice models have shown that the half‐life of DOX‐loaded nanobowl liposomes is 19.4 h, which is significantly longer than that of free DOX (1.3 h) and DOX‐loaded liposomes (14.1 h). The shorter half‐life of DOX‐loaded liposomes is attributed to the considerable drug leakage in the circulation (Figure 6C). Ex vivo results further illustrate that DOX leakage from liposomes gradually increases after exposure to shear rate of 1500 s−1 for 4 h in serum, whereas there is no significant difference in drug leakage in the nanobowl‐liposome formulation after 4 h of exposure to shear stress. This indicates the superior stability of nanobowl‐liposomes in the blood circulation.[62]6FigureThe potential of nanobowls in improving the efficacy of drug delivery to tumor sites. A) The role of nanobowl‐liposomes in preventing drug leakage caused by plasma proteins and blood flow shear stress, leading to enhanced drug delivery to tumor sites. B) A graph presenting the reduced leakage of drug‐loaded nanobowl‐liposomes compared to drug‐loaded liposomes under exposure to serum and shear stress. C) The blood clearance and tumor targeting of nanobowl‐liposomes loaded with a fluorescent dye and a chemotherapy drug. The panel shows the results of in vivo and ex vivo imaging of the tumor site over time after injection of the liposomes. D) The encapsulation efficiency of DOX‐loaded liposomes and nanobowl‐liposomes at different drug‐to‐lipid ratios. Reproduced with permission.[62] Copyright 2020, ACS Publications.Shear‐Responsive AggregatesThe second strategy for targeted drug delivery involves nanoparticle aggregates that can disintegrate in regions with elevated shear stress (Figure 4). Through modulation of drug release kinetics, shear‐responsive aggregates can be used to achieve localized drug delivery and precise control of drug concentration. The Hagen‐Poiseuille equation indicates that the magnitude of shear stress is inversely proportional to the size of the particles (d−3), hence stenotic regions in vessels and high shear stress zones in medical devices generate elevated shear stress. Micron‐sized aggregates release nanoparticles carrying drugs upon experiencing high shear stress. Smaller particles experience less hydrodynamic force, allowing nanoparticles to adhere to the target zone. As the nanoparticles adhere to the high shear stress zone, drugs are subsequently released following drug release kinetics. The disintegration of more aggregates results in a greater release of nanoparticles and drugs.[66]Marosfoi et al. present a novel technique for treating emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) in stroke patients using shear‐activated nanoparticles. The approach involves delivering recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) to the clot site, activated by the shear stress induced by blood flow. To provide an effective therapy option for ELVO, they combined temporary endovascular bypass (TEB) with shear‐activated nanotherapeutic (SA‐NT). To make high shear stress inside the rabbit body and temporary clot, the authors utilized stent retriever. Shear‐responsive aggregates containing nanoparticles have the size of 4 µm and 200 nm, respectively coated with rtPA, can adhere to surfaces under pathological shear stress (>100 dyn cm−2) while remaining intact under physiological shear stress.[34]In another study, Korin et al. used this approach by synthesizing micro‐sized poly (lactic‐co‐glycolic acid) (PLGA) shear‐activated nanotherapeutics (SA‐NTs) aggregates coated with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) using a spray‐drying technique and biotin–streptavidin coating method (Figure 7A). The stability of these aggregates in aqueous solutions is attributed to their hydrophobic nature, which limits the release of drugs embedded on their surface to high shear stress zones such as occlusion zones. A microfluidic device was used to assess the efficacy of their SA‐NT approach in selectively targeting agents to stenotic regions under hemodynamic flow conditions and it was found that perfusion of SA‐NTs through these microfluidic devices resulted in a 16‐fold increase in the release of free NPs downstream of the obstruction (Figure 7B). Also, the in vitro rheometer investigation demonstrates that aggregates can only be broken down to nanoparticles under shear stress greater than 100 dyn cm−2, which corresponds to the shear stress caused by a 60% lumen blockage of coronary artery, and the thrombolytic agent tPA can be released. The aggregates were administered intravenously into a mesenteric injury mouse model, demonstrating their efficient thrombolysis effect by delaying the time to full vessel occlusion in a FeCl3 mouse arterial thrombus model, reversing the debilitating hemodynamic changes of acute pulmonary embolism ex vivo at a concentration 100‐times lower than native rtPA, and having a higher survival rate compared to the mouse pulmonary embolism model (Figure 7C,D). Fluorescently‐labelled tPA exhibited preferential accumulation of shear‐dispersed nanoparticles near the stenosed vessel, resulting in rapid reopening of the vessel at a 100‐fold lower dose than similar active tPA (Figure 7E). In mouse models, 86% of mice treated with tPA‐coated SA‐NTs survived, whereas all control mice died within 45 min of injection due to acute emboli formation caused by fibrin clots, and no adverse bleeding effects were detected, as well as rapid clearance of micro‐aggregates from the systemic circulation (Figure 7F).[39]7FigureShear‐responsive aggregate system. A) The scanning electron microscope (SEM) image displays the SA‐NTs (2–5 µm, on the left) and PLGA nanoparticles (180 nm, on the right), utilized in the synthesis of the aggregate system. B) SA‐NTs dissociate into smaller spheres of NPs as a result of shear stress in a microfluidic model of a stenosed artery. C) The schematic of shear‐targeted thrombolytic drug delivery in a mouse artery thrombosis model. Ferric chloride injury leads to a partially obstructed thrombus. Injected SA‐NTs accumulate near the thrombus due to local shear stress, coated with tPA for clot interaction and progressive blockage clearance. D) Intravenous fluorescence microscopy images reveal that tPA platelet mimetics, given as a bolus injection, eliminate a thrombus in a partially blocked mesenteric artery within 5 min. E) The pressure recovery efficiency of nanoparticle aggregates at lower doses and bolus delivery. F) Mice survival rate for tPA‐coated SA‐NTs and control mice group. Reproduced with permission.[39] Copyright 2012, Science Publications.Toward Drug‐Loaded Liposomes for Thrombosis Prevention in Medical DevicesTo prevent thrombosis formation and bleeding complications in medical devices, several classes of medications have been proposed and investigated: anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and thrombolytic agents. Liposomal formulations of these drugs can enhance their stability, targeting, and reduce their systemic side effects.[67] Anticoagulant, such as unfractionated heparin (UFH),[68] low molecular weight heparin (LMWH),[69] and bivalirudin [70] are the most commonly used drugs to lower the risk of thrombosis. Antiplatelet medications, such as aspirin, clopidogrel, ticagrelor and prasugrel can be used in combination with other anticoagulant medications to achieve optimal thromboprophylaxis and reducing the risk of thrombosis formation.[71] Thrombolytic agents such as tPA and urokinase can dissolve clots that have formed in the medical devices by enhancing their targeting to the clot site.[72]AnticoagulantsAnticoagulants are commonly used in medical devices to prevent blood clots. The commonly used anticoagulants commonly includes heparin, direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) (bivalirudin, argatroban, lepirudin), factor Xa inhibitors (danaparoid and fondaparinux), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) (DTI (dabigatran), Xabans (rivaroxaban, apixaban, darexaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban)), factor‐XIIa inhibitors, nafamostat mesylate (NM), and warfarin so that heparin and DTIs are the most prevalent anticoagulants used in critically ill patients.[33b] Even though anticoagulants are commonly used in medical devices to reduce the risk of thrombosis, their systemic administration increases the risk of bleeding complications.[73] Red blood cells (RBCs) have gained attention as a promising drug delivery vehicle due to their innate properties such as biocompatibility, biodegradability, non‐immunogenicity, and extended circulation time. Their large surface area also enables effective drug loading. RBCs can enclose drugs either within their lipid bilayer or within the haemoglobin, allowing for sustained drug release. Furthermore, engineering RBCs to express specific receptors on their surface facilitates targeted drug delivery to specific cells or tissues. The use of RBCs as nanocarriers in medical devices can potentially prevent thrombosis. These RBCs could be customized to target specific thrombosis sites within the medical devices or release drugs in response to changes in shear stress, like shear‐responsive liposomes.Chen et al. utilized electrostatic forces to bind heparin‐encapsulated nanoparticles onto RBCs to prolong heparin circulation in the body. This extended blood circulation time is advantageous because it increases the chances of the nanoparticles reaching their target site and delivering their payload. The nanoparticles, made up of heparin and thiolated poly‐L‐lysine (PLL), exhibit increased stability through the formation of disulfide bonds (Figure 8A). The positively charged heparin nanoparticles are attracted to the negatively charged RBCs. Since blood vessels at thrombus sites are narrowed, the magnitude of shear stress exerted on them increases significantly, resulting in the targeted release of heparin‐containing nanoparticles (cNPs) from RBCs. Under low shear stress (1 Pa), scanning electron microscope imaging revealed that ≈80% of the particles were attached to the RBCs while under high shear‐stress (10 Pa), ≈50% of the particles remained attached to the RBCs after 24 h. After 48 h, nearly all the particles were detached, demonstrating the effect of shear stress on nanoparticle detachment from RBCs (Figure 8B). The size and charge of cNPs at the optimal ratio of poly‐L‐lysine to heparin, as well as microscopic images of cNPs and RBCs adsorbed with cNPs in both aqueous and dry states, were also characterized (Figure 8C).[64]8FigureA) A diagram of preparing red blood cell‐adsorbed cross‐linked nanoparticles (RBC‐cNPs). B)the release of heparin/polypeptide hybrid nanoparticles cross‐linked with disulfide bonds (cNPs) from red blood cells (RBCs) in response to varying levels of shear stress over time. C) Characteristics of heparin‐polypeptide hybrid nanoparticles cross‐linked with disulfide bonds (cNPs). D) Cumulative release profiles of heparin released over time for various formulations, including free heparin, heparin/polypeptide hybrid nanoparticles (NPs), heparin/polypeptide cross‐linked with disulfide bonds (cNPs), and RBC‐adsorbed cNPs (RBC‐cNPs). Reproduced with permission.[64] Copyright 2016, Wiley‐VCH.Antiplatelet AgentsDue to high shear stress sites, the ECMO circuit can activate platelets and increase the risk of thrombosis. By inhibiting platelet aggregation, antiplatelet drugs can help prevent thrombosis and reduce the risk of thrombosis formation. Antiplatelet medications can prevent clot formation or stop existing clots from growing further, and they particularly target platelets by blocking their adherence or aggregation via different mechanisms. Since platelets play a crucial role in haemostasis, the use of antiplatelet medications for a variety of clinical disorders has grown in popularity in recent years. Aspirin, integrin GPIIb/IIIa (αIIbβ3) antagonists, thienopyridines, dipyridamole, and ticagrelor are the most often utilized antiplatelet medicines.[74] GPIIb/IIIa antagonists work by preventing fibrinogen from binding to integrin IIb3. However, bleeding and thrombocytopenia are the most common adverse effects.[75] Abciximab, Eptifibatide, and Tirofiban are three parenteral GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors that have been developed and licensed for use in North America, particularly to prevent thrombotic reocclusion following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).[76] They impede fibrinogen and vWF binding, and thereby platelet aggregation, by blocking GPIIb/IIIa receptors on activated platelets. Physiologic platelet agonists such as ADP, epinephrine, collagen, or thrombin generate intracellular signals that convert the inactive GPIIb/IIIa on resting platelets to an active conformation in response to disturbed vascular endothelium. This reveals a high‐affinity binding location for ligands like fibrinogen on the extracellular domain of GPIIb/IIIa. When fibrinogen and/or vWF bind to active GPIIb/IIIa in the presence of calcium ions, adjacent platelets aggregate.[77]Molloy et al. addressed the high risk of bleeding complications associated with antiplatelet therapy by utilizing shear‐responsive nanocapsules (NCs) for targeted drug delivery to thrombosis sites. In vivo and in vitro experiments were conducted to compare this approach to systematic antiplatelet therapy. Phosphatidylcholine (PC)‐based nanocapsules containing eptifibatide were tested for shear sensitivity using microfluidic devices with 80% stenosis (Figure 9A). Fluorescence microscopy was used to observe the inhibitory effect of drug‐loaded nanocapsules on thrombosis (Figure 9D). The results indicate that nanocapsules are only ruptured at the stenosis area with a shear rate of 8000 s−1, but not in the upstream area with a shear rate of 1000 s−1 (Figure 9B,C). The study also demonstrated that eptifibatide‐loaded nanoparticles have antithrombotic properties without prolonging bleeding time in a mouse model of vessel wall damage.[63]9FigureAntiplatelet nanocapsules target thrombi in stenotic vessel segments. A) In vitro microfluidic channels have a semicircular protrusion on the sidewall with an occlusion of 80%. B) Citrate anticoagulated whole blood loaded with either phosphate‐buffered saline (PBS) NCs (PBS‐NCs) or eptifibatide NCs (E‐NCs) was perfused at 1000 s−1 input shear rates and imaged upstream and within the stenosis. C) PBS, PBS‐NCs, E‐NCs, or free eptifibatide were used to measure platelet aggregate surface area in the upstream section with a shear rate of 1000 s−1 and the stenotic region with 8000 s−1. D) Fluorescent images of DiOC6‐labeled platelet thrombi (red) on collagen type I in the presence of NBD‐PE‐labelled NCs following blood perfusion (green). Reproduced with permission.[63] Copyright 2012, Elsevier Publications.Thrombolytic DrugsThrombolytic (clot‐busting) drugs dissolve blood clots within blood vessels and are used in medical devices to prevent damage to components from clot formation. In particular, tPA,[78] rtPA,[79] urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA),[80] and streptokinase are commonly used thrombolytic drugs in ECMO. These drugs activate plasminogen, which degrades fibrin, the main component of blood clots.[81] However, the use of thrombolytic drugs in medical devices must be considered on an individual basis due to the risk of bleeding and other comorbidities. Factors such as the patient's clinical condition, duration of device support, underlying medical condition, and other comorbidities should be considered. Liposome‐loaded thrombolytic drugs are designed to target and deliver the thrombolytic drug specifically to the site of the blood clot, while minimizing exposure to healthy tissue.[82] This approach can enhance the efficacy of thrombolytic drugs and decrease the risk of bleeding complications by increasing drug stability through protecting it from enzymatic degradation and inactivation in the body.[83] It also extends the drug's circulation time, and improves drug specificity via the incorporation of receptor‐binding molecules.[84]The activated‐platelet‐sensitive nanocarrier is designed to release its contents when encountering activated platelets, enabling targeted delivery of antithrombotic drugs to the site of the clot. This targeted delivery of antithrombotic drugs can increase the effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy and reduce the risk of bleeding complications.[85] Huang et al. developed a low‐toxicity targeted delivery system using PEGylated liposomes coated with cyclic RGD (cRGD) peptide for tPA. The interaction between cRGD peptides on liposomes and GPIIb/IIIa integrins on activated platelets results in the fusion of platelet membrane and liposomes and the release of tPA (Figure 10A). This approach resulted in significantly higher and faster release of tPA compared to untargeted liposomes.[86] Figure 10B displays the results of a study on the binding affinity of different liposomal formulations to resting and activated platelets. The mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of resting and activated platelets incubated with various formulations was analyzed. The results suggest that tPA‐PEG‐cRGD‐lip displayed significantly enhanced staining of activated platelets compared to the other liposomal formulations, indicating its ability to efficiently facilitate targeted drug delivery to activated platelets at a thrombus site. The results also suggest that PEG‐cRGD‐lip showed significantly enhanced dissolution of blood clots compared to Lip and PEG‐lip (Figure 10C). Zhang et al. combined active thrombus targeting with cRGD and gradual drug release from liposomes to improve in vivo thrombolytic efficacy 4‐fold over free uPA while also shortening the bleeding time of the tail bleeding assay of hemostasis, potentially reducing side effects associated with uPA by reducing the amount of uPA required.[87]10FigureA) Depiction of the targeted release of tPA at the site of a thrombus using tPA‐PEG‐cRGD‐lip. B) Comparison of fluorescence microscopy images (top) and the mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) (bottom) of platelets in both resting and activated states after incubation with FITC‐labeled tPA‐lip, tPA‐PEG‐lip, and tPA‐PEG‐cRGD‐lip. C) The effects of different tPA formulations on clot dissolution. Reproduced with permission.[86] Copyright 2019, Elsevier.Novel Microfluidic Devices to Assess Thrombosis and Drug ReleaseNanoparticles hold promise as therapeutic agents for treating cardiovascular disease. However, their development faces obstacles due to a lack of in vitro platforms that precisely emulate in vivo environment for analyzing their behavior.[88] Designing and optimizing effective antithrombotic nanoparticles requires understanding their reactions in the dynamic bloodstream environment and how they interact with blood components and medical devices. Their efficiency in vivo, however, is influenced by a variety of parameters, including their size, shape, surface chemistry, and ability to interact with blood components.[89] To optimize the design and formulation of antithrombotic nanoparticles for maximum therapeutic efficacy, it is necessary to understand the circulation time, uptake by target cells, and toxicity affect their biological behavior.Microfluidic technology offers a promising in vitro platform for studying the behavior of nanoparticles, particularly for the development of effective nanoparticle‐based therapies for cardiovascular disease.[90] It can replicate the complex flow and shear conditions of the bloodstream and provide controlled and well‐defined conditions for nanoparticle testing and linking in vitro measurements of nanoparticle behavior with their performance in vivo. With the potential to model a range of biological systems, microfluidic devices can save valuable and costly samples, minimize experimentation costs, and can be highly automated, expediting drug testing and development.[91] Zilberman‐Rudenko et al. designed a multi‐bypass microfluidics ladder network to investigate the patterns of blood clot formation under complex shear. They simulated complex blood fluid dynamics by assuming that red blood cells and platelets are non‐interacting spherical particles transported by bulk fluid flow. They were able to predict the patterns of blood clot formation at specific locations in the device, and their experimental data was used to adjust the model to account for the dynamic presence of thrombus formation. A distinct flow and thrombus formation patterns were observed in the microfluidic device, implying a specific correlation between microvascular geometry and thrombus formation dynamics under shear. This model has the potential to identify regions susceptible to intravascular thrombus formation within the microvasculature as well as in therapeutic devices.[92]In another study, Marcial et al. [93] developed a microfluidic platform with multiple stenoses to study thrombosis formation under the hemodynamic conditions of medical devices, such as ECMO, in which blood passes through the circuit multiple times (Figure 11). They confirmed thrombus formation at severe stenosis with 85% narrowing and high shear rates. Clots were found in all stenoses, but the first stenosis had the highest percentage of aggregation. The findings suggest that the first stenosis should be treated earlier to prevent total occlusion. These findings may aid in the assessment and treatment of patients with multiple lesions in the same blood vessel, as well as the long‐term effect of multiple blood passes inside the medical devices.11FigureA) The setup used to monitor the formation of thrombosis. B) Fabricated microfluidic chip. The chip contained channels with one (a), two (b), and three (c) lesions. Reproduced with permission.[93] Copyright 2022, Springer Nature.Challenges and Factors Impacting the Efficacy of Liposomal Drug Delivery SystemsLiposomes are widely used for drug delivery due to their ability to encapsulate both hydrophilic and hydrophobic compounds. Liposomal drugs have the potential to improve the efficiency and specificity of drug delivery by protecting drugs from enzymatic degradation and providing targeted delivery to the site of action.[94] Despite their potential to improve drug efficiency and specificity, liposomal drugs face challenges such as hemolysis, toxicity, stability, and targeting issues. Additionally, the composition of the liposomes, environmental conditions, and the presence of other medical conditions can significantly affect their functionality. Moreover, patients using medical devices will typically receive support for several days or even weeks. During this time, the liposomes must remain stable to effectively deliver drugs and prevent thrombosis formation. Liposomes that are not stable will tend to leak their contents or be rapidly removed from circulation, reducing their efficacy in preventing thrombosis. This section examines the challenges and factors influencing the effectiveness of liposomal drugs for targeted drug delivery in medical devices.Liposomes are generally non‐hemolytic and non‐toxic,[95] but under specific circumstances they can cause hemolysis, the rupture of red blood cells. Hemolysis is influenced by liposome size, surface charge, concentration, and composition. Higher concentrations, larger size, and positive surface charge induce greater hemolysis.[96] However, uncharged liposomes can lower hemolysis.[97]Liposomal drugs are considered as foreign nanoparticles that can be attacked by immune system. They can trigger complement activation‐related pseudo‐allergy (CARPA),[98] an adverse immune phenomenon that can cause acute hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in up to 45% of individuals.[99] European Medicines Agency recommends in vivo and in vitro assessment of CARPA as a preclinical immune toxicity analysis prior to developing liposomal drugs. It has been shown that Pad‐PC‐Pad liposomes with a concentration of 20 mg mL−1 were shown to induce complement cascade via the alternative pathway, while with a lower lipid concentration of 2 mg mL−1, no complement activation was observed in both in vitro human and porcine sera and animal porcine model. The study found that Pad‐PC‐Pad demonstrates less risk of CARPA compared to food and drug administration (FDA)‐approved liposomal drugs. However, the low transient phase temperature of Pad‐PC‐Pad in the human body limits its clinical application, and more stable liposomes should be explored.[100]The stability of the nanocarriers is a major concern in shear‐responsive drug delivery systems. The prolonged use of MCS medical devices such as ECMO or LVAD for severely ill patients suffering from conditions such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or severe cardiac failure poses a challenge to liposome stability and circulation time that must be addressed. Liposomes are recognized and cleared by the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS), reducing their therapeutic potential.[101] Strategies such as PEGylation, steric stabilization, stealth liposomes, targeting ligands, size, charge, and formulation can improve stability, circulation time and efficacy of liposomal drugs. PEGylation involves attaching PEG molecules to liposome surfaces,[102] which improves their stability and circulation time in vivo by reducing recognition and uptake by the MPS.[103] This phenomenon can be explained by PEG‐induced steric hindrance that refers to the physical obstruction of the access of molecules to a surface by the presence of other molecules. When PEG molecules are attached to the surface of liposomes, they create a cloud of PEG molecules around the liposomes that physically obstructs the access of other molecules to the surface of the liposomes. This reduction in the rate of liposome‐cell and liposome‐protein interactions increases the circulation time of liposomes in the bloodstream, making them more stable and reducing the rate of their clearance by the MPS.[104]Liposome size and charge are important factors that can influence liposome stability. Smaller liposomes with a neutral or positive surface charge circulate longer than larger liposomes with a negative surface charge as they are less likely to be recognized by the MPS.[105] Depending on the lipid content, liposomes can be neutral, positive, or negative in charge. Neutral liposomes tend to aggregate and have less physical stability, and they do not interact strongly with cells, causing the drug to be released into the extracellular space. However, charged liposomes have several advantages over neutral liposomes, including the ability to prevent aggregation and enhance cell contact by generating zeta‐potential, an electrostatic repulsion.[106]The incorporation of cholesterol into the membrane of liposomes can have a substantial effect on their stability and circulation time.[107] Cholesterol is a steroid molecule that naturally exist in cell membranes and is known to contribute to the fluidity and stability of membranes. Liposomes devoid of cholesterol in the bilayer are more susceptible to leakage and fusion with other vesicles, and they can reduce circulation time since they are rapidly cleared by the MPS. Cholesterol can affect the circulation time of liposomes by altering their interaction with the immune system of the body. Cholesterol can modify the surface properties of liposomes by decreasing their negative charge, thereby making them less susceptible to recognition and clearance by the MPS. This can increase the circulation time of liposomes, allowing them to remain at their target site for a longer duration. When cholesterol is incorporated into the liposomal membrane, it can increase the stability of the liposomes by reinforcing the integrity of the lipid bilayer. Cholesterol is a molecule that has both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions, which allows it to span across the hydrophobic core of the bilayer and interact with the polar headgroups of the phospholipids. This interaction can help to reduce the fluidity of the bilayer and increase its packing density, making the liposome more resistant to leakage and fusion with other vesicles.[108] The effects of cholesterol are dose‐dependent, and optimization of its concentration during formulation is necessary to achieve desired outcomes. Liposomes should also be characterized for size, shape, charge, and fluidity to ensure stability and suitability for their intended use.[109]Different natural and synthetic phospholipids have different phase transition temperature (TM), which is a very important parameter influencing drug encapsulation efficiency, storage stability, and in vivo stability. Liposomes with higher TM are more thermally stable than those with lower TM. This is because when the temperature is below the TM, the lipids in the bilayer are in a solid‐ordered phase that makes the bilayer more rigid and less permeable to small molecules. This increased rigidity of the bilayer makes the liposomes more resistant to environmental stimulus, such as temperature changes, pH changes, and shear stress. The TM of liposomes is dependent on the type of lipids that make up the bilayer. Liposomes composed of saturated lipids have a higher TM than those composed of unsaturated lipids. In particular, distearoyl phosphotidyl Choline (DSPC) and hydrogenated soybean phosphatidylcholine (HSPC) have a TM of 58 ○C [110] and 52 ○C,[111] respectively, while the TM of the dioleolyl phosphotidy I choline (DOPC) is − 20 ○C.[112]Targeting liposomes with antibodies is a method of directing liposomes to specific cells or tissues in the body.[113] The effect of targeting liposomes with antibodies on their stability and circulation time can depend on various factors, including the type of antibody and the target. In general, targeting liposomes with antibodies can increase their stability and circulation time in the bloodstream by reducing the rate of liposome‐cell and liposome‐protein interactions. This is achieved by reducing the rate of opsonization, which is the process of liposomes being marked by proteins, this marking allows the immune system to recognize and remove them. Additionally, targeting liposomes with antibodies can also increase their stability by enhancing the specificity of the liposomes to their target, resulting in a higher accumulation of liposomes at the target site and a reduced rate of clearance by the MPS. Thrombosis targeted liposomes could potentially be used to prevent or treat blood clots in medical devices. The liposomes can be coated with an antibody that binds to a protein found on the surface of the clot, such as tissue factor, which allows the liposomes to target the clot specifically. Once the liposomes reach the clot, the clot‐dissolving agent, usually a plasminogen activator, is released, and it breaks down the clot.[114] However, it is worth noting that targeting liposomes with antibodies can also have some limitations. For example, antibodies can be expensive, and the conjugation process can alter the properties of liposomes, such as their size and charge, which can affect their stability and circulation time.[115] Therefore, the effect of targeting liposomes with antibodies on their stability and circulation time is complex and needs to be carefully evaluated.Despite FDA approval of several liposomal drugs, clinical challenges and limitations remain.[116] Due to the sensitivity of liposomes to environmental factors such as temperature, pH, and humidity, and shear stress, determining the optimal dose is difficult. Therefore, proper storage and handling are essential to ensure the stability and shelf‐life of liposomal drugs. Additionally, the formulation of liposomal drugs can also be a challenge, as the composition and size of the liposomes can greatly affect their stability and effectiveness. Formulation optimization can help to identify the optimal liposome size, composition, and surface properties that are required to achieve the desired pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties.[117] Limited approval and insurance coverage, as well as high production costs, can reduce accessibility and affordability for patients. These challenges can be overcome by developing efficient production methods and advocating for favorable reimbursement policies.[118] Further research and careful clinical trial design can help to identify optimal dosing and administration methods, as well as to assess safety and efficacy in patients. Overall, while liposomes have great potential as drug delivery vehicles, more research is needed to address these challenges and improve their efficacy in vivo.Conclusions and OutlookMedical devices usually provide respiratory and/or cardiac support to critically ill patients. However, the use of medical devices is associated with a high risk of thrombosis formation and bleeding complications. Shear stress is an important mechanism in the medical devices, as it can cause injury to the blood cells and increase the risk of thrombosis. The use of shear‐responsive liposomes, which are engineered to respond to the shear stress of blood flow, has the potential to further improve the specificity and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in medical devices. These engineered liposomes can be designed to release their contents only when they reach the site of high shear stress, reducing the risk of bleeding complications. These liposomes can be coated with an antibody that binds to activated platelets or fibrin mesh. Once the liposomes reach the clot, the antithrombotic agent is released, and it either prevents platelet aggregation and thrombosis or breaks down the thrombosis.The field of shear‐responsive drug carriers is still in its early stages, and there are numerous challenges that must be addressed to advance this technology toward clinical applications. There is currently no standardized assay to characterize shear activation of such drug carriers, and such assays would need to be validated and approved. In this way, microfluidic devices can be utilized for mimicking the shear stress conditions in medical devices for liposomal drug testing and investigate their efficacy under controlled condition. The use of microfluidic technology in in vitro drug testing has a variety of advantages including the ability to precisely control fluid flow, reduced sample and reagent requirements, and automation that facilitates faster experimentation. Consequently, this platform holds great promise for the creation of effective drugs to treat a variety of medical conditions.Moreover, significant issues such as hemolysis, stability, and toxicity can compromise the efficacy of liposomal drugs in vivo. In addition, temperature, pH, and humidity, shear stress can cause liposomes to degrade and lose their efficacy, resulting in stability issues. Liposomes can be recognized and cleared by the immune system, which can result in low levels of the drug reaching the target site and toxicity. While developing liposome‐based therapies for patients using medical devices, it is important to consider the stability of the liposomes. To effectively deliver drugs to the medical devises area and prevent thrombosis formation, the stability of liposomes over an extended period is crucial. In addition, optimization of size, charge, and formulation can help to determine the optimal liposome size, composition, and surface properties required to achieve the desired pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Additional research is required to optimize these particles for effective drug targeting, which is highly dependent on the used drugs. Therefore, choosing the appropriate drugs to use with this technology is crucial to its success.Despite various achievements, further investigation is required to bridge the gap between current advances and their clinical application. Notably, the use of shear‐responsive liposomes in medical devices is still under investigation and has not yet been approved for use in patients. Furthermore, it is important to note that the use of shear‐responsive liposomes in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy, which is commonly used in medical devices, should be carefully evaluated to prevent adverse interactions. Finally, liposomal drugs have a variety of clinical challenges and limitations that must be addressed. These barriers include difficulties in achieving targeted drug delivery, determining the optimal dose, issues with stability and shelf‐life, high production costs, administration routes, and regulatory approval challenges. Various strategies, such as targeted delivery systems, formulation optimization, the development of more efficient and cost‐effective manufacturing methods, and careful clinical trial design and monitoring, can help overcome these constraints.AcknowledgementsS.Z.S. was supported by a Monash PhD scholarship. C.E.H. was a Senior Research Fellow of the National Health and Medical Reserach Council (NHMRC) of Australia (award number GNT1154270). S.D.G. was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (#2016995) and the National Heart Foundation of Australia (#106675)Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.Conflict of InterestThe authors declare no conflict interest.a) J. T. Wolfe, A. Shradhanjali, B. J. Tefft, Tissue Eng., Part B 2022, 28, 1067;.b) Y. J. Hong, H. Jeong, K. W. Cho, N. Lu, D. H. Kim, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1808247.C. H. H. Chan, K. K. Ki, M. Zhang, C. Asnicar, H. J. Cho, C. Ainola, M. Bouquet, S. Heinsar, J. P. Pauls, G. L.i Bassi, Membranes 2021, 11, 313.A. G. Bhat, A. Golchin, D. K. Pasupula, J. A. Hernandez‐Montfort, Case Rep Crit Care 2019, 2019, 8594681.C. Weber, A. C. Deppe, A. Sabashnikov, I. Slottosch, E. Kuhn, K. Eghbalzadeh, M. Scherner, Y. H. Choi, N. Madershahian, T. Wahlers, Perfusion 2018, 33, 283.G. Parzy, F. Daviet, N. Persico, R. Rambaud, U. Scemama, M. Adda, C. Guervilly, S. Hraiech, K. Chaumoitre, A. Roch, L. Papazian, J. M. Forel, Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, 192.a) S. Heuts, M. Makhoul, A. N. Mansouri, F. S. Taccone, A. Obeid, M. Belliato, L. M. Broman, M. Malfertheiner, P. Meani, G. M. Raffa, T. Delnoij, J. Maessen, G. Bolotin, R. Lorusso, Artif. Organs 2022, 46, 349;.b) S. Vaquer, C. de Haro, P. Peruga, J. C. Oliva, A. Artigas, Ann Intensive Care 2017, 7, 51.A. Zangrillo, G. Landoni, G. Biondi‐Zoccai, M. Greco, T. Greco, G. Frati, N. Patroniti, M. Antonelli, A. Pesenti, F. Pappalardo, Crit Care Resusc 2013, 15, 172.R. R. Thiagarajan, R. P. Barbaro, P. T. Rycus, D. M. Mcmullan, S. A. Conrad, J. D. Fortenberry, M. L. Paden, ASAIO J. 2017, 63, 60.A. Abruzzo, V. Gorantla, S. E. Thomas, Thromb. Res. 2022, 212, 58.S. Karaz, E. Senses, Adv Nanobiomed Res 2023, 3, 2200101.T. Hoefer, A. Rana, B. Niego, S. Jagdale, H. J. Albers, E. E. Gardiner, R. K. Andrews, A. D. Van der Meer, C. E. Hagemeyer, E. Westein, Haematologica 2021, 106, 2874.Y. C. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, F. Jiang, K. Kyanian, S. S. S. Aye, T. Hong, P. Vatankhah, A. Nasser, A. Sun, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2023, 2214179.J. N. Kizhakkedathu, E. M. Conway, Blood 2022, 139, 1987.C. Tapeinos, A. Larrañaga, F. Tomatis, J. Bizeau, A. Marino, M. Battaglini, A. Pandit, G. Ciofani, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 1906283.M. Cihova, E. Müller, Y. Chandorkar, K. Thorwarth, G. Fortunato, K. Maniura‐Weber, J. F. Löffler, M. Rottmar, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2108256.a) I. H. Jaffer, J. I. Weitz, Acta Biomater. 2019, 94, 2;b) A. M. Ruhoff, J. K. Hong, L. Gao, J. Singh, C. Tran, G. Mackie, A. Waterhouse, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10, 2100988;c) M. B. Gorbet, M. V. Sefton, Biomaterials 2004, 25, 5681.C. A. Labarrere, A. E. Dabiri, G. S. Kassab, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 123.B. P. Nuyttens, T. Thijs, H. Deckmyn, K. Broos, Thromb. Res. 2011, 127, S26.a) S. Krishnaswamy, J. Thromb. Haemostasis 2013, 11, 265;.b) Y. Sang, M. Roest, B. de Laat, P. G. de Groot, D. Huskens, Blood Rev. 2021, 46, 100733;.c) H. De Boer, C. Verseyden, L. Ulfman, J. Zwaginga, I. Bot, E. Biessen, T. Rabelink, A. Van Zonneveld, Arterioscler., Thromb., Vasc. Biol. 2006, 26, 1653.L. Xiao, Y. Ma, R. Crawford, J. Mendhi, Y. Zhang, H. Lu, Q. Zhao, J. Cao, C. Wu, X. Wang, Mater. Today 2022, 15, 100303.a) S. Rahman, A. Fogelson, V. Hlady, Colloids Surf., B 2020, 193, 111118;.b) F. Swieringa, H. M. Spronk, J. W. Heemskerk, P. E. van der Meijden, Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost. 2018, 2, 450.F. Fiusco, L. M. Broman, L. Prahl Wittberg, ASAIO J. 2022, 68, 79.a) S. Nomura, N. N. Tandon, T. Nakamura, J. Cone, S. Fukuhara, J. Kambayashi, Atherosclerosis 2001, 158, 277;.b) C. H. Chan, M. J. Simmonds, K. H. Fraser, K. Igarashi, K. K. Ki, T. Murashige, M. T. Joseph, J. F. Fraser, G. D. Tansley, N. Watanabe, J. Biomech. 2022, 130, 110898.A. Rana, E. Westein, B. e. Niego, C. E. Hagemeyer, Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2019, 6, 141.A. H. Gillespie, A. Doctor, Front. Pediatr. 2021, 9, 629824.L. Lanotte, J. Mauer, S. Mendez, D. A. Fedosov, J. M. Fromental, V. Claveria, F. Nicoud, G. Gompper, M. Abkarian, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 13289.a) S. Sohrabi, Y. Liu, Artif. Organs 2017, 41, E80;.b) J. W. Weisel, R. I. Litvinov, J. Thromb. Haemost. 2019, 17, 271.C. Fisser, M. Winkler, M. V. Malfertheiner, A. Philipp, M. Foltan, D. Lunz, F. Zeman, L. S. Maier, M. Lubnow, T. Müller, Crit. Care 2021, 25, 160.J. H. Levy, J. M. Connors, N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 826.A. Koster, Y. Weng, W. Böttcher, T. Gromann, H. Kuppe, R. Hetzer, Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007, 83, 1865.M. Larsson, V. Rayzman, M. W. Nolte, K. F. Nickel, J. Björkqvist, A. Jämsä, M. P. Hardy, M. Fries, S. Schmidbauer, P. Hedenqvist, M. Broomé, I. Pragst, G. Dickneite, M. J. Wilson, A. D. Nash, C. Panousis, T. Renné, Sci. Transl. Med. 2014, 6, 222ra17.K. L. Wood, B. Ayers, I. Gosev, N. Kumar, A. L. Melvin, B. Barrus, S. Prasad, Ann. Thoracic Surge. 2020, 109, 1458.a) M. Zhang, J. P. Pauls, N. Bartnikowski, A. B. Haymet, C. H. Chan, J. Y. Suen, B. Schneider, K. K. Ki, A. K. Whittaker, M. S. Dargusch, ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 7, 4402;b) S. Zeibi Shirejini, J. Carberry, Z. K. McQuilten, A. J. Burrell, S. D. Gregory, C. E. Hagemeyer, Thromb. J. 2023, 21, 11;c) M. C. Jen, M. C. Serrano, R. Van Lith, G. A. Ameer, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2012, 22, 239.M. G. Marosfoi, N. Korin, M. J. Gounis, O. Uzun, S. Vedantham, E. T. Langan, A. L. Papa, O. W. Brooks, C. Johnson, A. S. Puri, D. Bhatta, M. Kanapathipillai, B. R. Bronstein, J. Y. Chueh, D. E. Ingber, A. K. Wakhloo, Stroke 2015, 46, 3507.J. H. Lee, H. Oh, U. Baxa, S. R. Raghavan, R. Blumenthal, Biomacromolecules 2012, 13, 3388.a) M. Guvendiren, H. D. Lu, J. A. Burdick, Soft Matter 2012, 8, 260;b) M. N. Holme, I. A. Fedotenko, D. Abegg, J. Althaus, L. Babel, F. Favarger, R. Reiter, R. Tanasescu, P. L. Zaffalon, A. Ziegler, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7, 536;.c) Y. Wang, A. V. Pisapati, X. F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10, 2002196.N. Korin, M. J. Gounis, A. K. Wakhloo, D. E. Ingber, JAMA Neurol. 2015, 72, 119.T. Saxer, A. Zumbuehl, B. Müller, Cardiovasc. Res. 2013, 99, 328.N. Korin, M. Kanapathipillai, B. D. Matthews, M. Crescente, A. Brill, T. Mammoto, K. Ghosh, S. Jurek, S. A. Bencherif, D. Bhatta, A. U. Coskun, C. L. Feldman, D. D. Wagner, D. E. Ingber, Science 2012, 337, 738.D. L. Bark Jr, D. N. Ku, J. Biomech. 2010, 43, 2970.M. Zhou, Y. Yu, R. Chen, X. Liu, Y. Hu, Z. Ma, L. Gao, W. Jian, L. Wang, Front Cardiovasc Med 2023, 10, 1083547.A. Maruf, Y. Wang, T. Yin, J. Huang, N. Wang, C. Durkan, Y. Tan, W. Wu, G. Wang, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2019, 8, 1900036.E. Roux, P. Bougaran, P. Dufourcq, T. Couffinhal, Front Physiol 2020, 11, 861.J. J. Chiu, S. Chien, Physiol. Rev. 2011, 91, 327.a) M. N. Holme, G. Schulz, H. Deyhle, T. Weitkamp, F. Beckmann, J. A. Lobrinus, F. Rikhtegar, V. Kurtcuoglu, I. Zanette, T. Saxer, B. Müller, Nat. Protoc. 2014, 9, 1401;.b) C. Cheng, F. Helderman, D. Tempel, D. Segers, B. Hierck, R. Poelmann, A. van Tol, D. J. Duncker, D. Robbers‐Visser, N. T. Ursem, Atherosclerosis 2007, 195, 225;.c) D. N. Ku, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1997, 29, 399;d) M. Zamir, J. Gen. Physiol. 1977, 69, 449.a) G. Fuchs, N. Berg, L. M. Broman, L. Prahl Wittberg, Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13985;.b) S. Gross‐Hardt, F. Hesselmann, J. Arens, U. Steinseifer, L. Vercaemst, W. Windisch, D. Brodie, C. Karagiannidis, Crit. Care 2019, 23, 348.a) M. T. Griffin, K. Ashworth, N. Hill, J. von Behren, J. Di Paola, D. N. Ku, Nanomed.: Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2021, 35, 102405;.b) L. D. C. Casa, D. H. Deaton, D. N. Ku, J. Vascul. Surg. 2015, 61, 1068.a) V. Thondapu, D. Shishikura, J. Dijkstra, S. J. Zhu, E. Revalor, P. W. Serruys, W. J. van Gaal, E. K. Poon, A. Ooi, P. Barlis, Front Cardiovasc Med 2022, 9, 835270;b) H. Zafar, F. Sharif, M. J. Leahy, Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc 2014, 5, 68;c) J. F. LaDisa, L. E. Olson, H. A. Douglas, D. C. Warltier, J. R. Kersten, P. S. Pagel, Biomed. Eng. Online 2006, 5, 40.a) C. M. Otto, Mass Medical Soc. 2000, 343, 652;b) M. Bortot, A. Sharifi, K. Ashworth, F. Walker, A. Cox, K. Ruegg, N. Clendenen, K. B. Neeves, D. Bark, J. Di Paola, Cell Mol. Bioeng. 2020, 13, 379.a) R. Mongrain, J. Rodés‐Cabau, Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2006, 59, 1;.b) B. J. Ballermann, A. Dardik, E. Eng, A. Liu, Kidney Int. 1998, 54, S100.S. Gross‐Hardt, F. Hesselmann, J. Arens, U. Steinseifer, L. Vercaemst, W. Windisch, D. Brodie, C. Karagiannidis, Crit. Care 2019, 23, 348.a) A. R. Curtas, H. G. Wood, P. E. Allaire, J. C. McDaniel, S. W. Day, D. B. Olsen, ASAIO J. 2002, 48, 552;.b) B. P. Selgrade, G. A. Truskey, Artif. Organs 2012, 36, E89.a) S. Baratchi, M. T. Zaldivia, M. Wallert, J. Loseff‐Silver, S. Al‐Aryahi, J. Zamani, P. Thurgood, A. Salim, N. M. Htun, D. Stub, Circulation 2020, 142, 1092;.b) V. Raghav, I. Okafor, M. Quach, L. Dang, S. Marquez, A. P. Yoganathan, Ann. Thoracic Surge. 2016, 101, 1759.J. F. LaDisa Jr, A. Ghorbannia, D. S. Marks, P. Mason, H. Otake, Fluids 2022, 7, 325.J. W. Myerson, B. Braender, O. Mcpherson, P. M. Glassman, R. Y. Kiseleva, V. V. Shuvaev, O. Marcos‐Contreras, M. E. Grady, H. S. Lee, C. F. Greineder, Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1802373.S. Y. Yao, M. L. Shen, S. J. Li, X. D. Wu, M. M. Zhang, L. N. Ma, Y. P. Li, Colloids Surf., B 2020, 186, 110718.S. P. Samuel, N. Jain, F. O'Dowd, T. Paul, D. Kashanin, V. A. Gerard, Y. K. Gun'ko, A. Prina‐Mello, Y. Volkov, Int. J. Nanomed. 2012, 7, 2943.T. Fujie, M. Yoshimoto, Soft Matter 2019, 15, 9537.C. H. Albertsen, J. Kulkarni, D. Witzigmann, M. Lind, K. Petersson, J. B. Simonsen, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2022, 188, 114416.H. Yu, J. S. Palazzolo, Y. Ju, B. e. Niego, S. Pan, C. E. Hagemeyer, F. Caruso, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2022, 11, 2201151.A. L. Bernard, M. A. Guedeau‐Boudeville, V. Marchi‐Artzner, T. Gulik‐Krzywicki, J. M. di Meglio, L. Jullien, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2005, 287, 298.Z. J. Chen, S. C. Yang, X. L. Liu, Y. Gao, X. Dong, X. Lai, M. H. Zhu, H. Y. Feng, X. D. Zhu, Q. Lu, Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 4177.C. P. Molloy, Y. Yao, H. Kammoun, T. Bonnard, T. Hoefer, K. Alt, F. Tovar‐Lopez, G. Rosengarten, P. A. Ramsland, A. D. van der Meer, A. van den Berg, A. J. Murphy, C. E. Hagemeyer, K. Peter, E. Westein, J Thromb Haemost 2017, 15, 972.C. Chen, S. Li, K. Liu, G. Ma, X. Yan, Small 2016, 12, 4719.T. Natsume, M. Yoshimoto, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 3671.O. C. Farokhzad, A. Khademhosseini, S. Jon, A. Hermmann, J. Cheng, C. Chin, A. Kiselyuk, B. Teply, G. Eng, R. Langer, Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 5453.J. Guan, H. Guo, T. Tang, Y. Wang, Y. Wei, P. Seth, Y. Li, S. M. Dehm, E. Ruoslahti, H. B. Pang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2100478.M. N. Uricchio, R. Ramanan, S. A. Esper, H. Murray, D. J. Kaczorowski, B. D'Aloiso, H. Gomez, C. Sciortino, P. G. Sanchez, P. L. Sappington, ASAIO J. 2023, 69, 107.P. Paolisso, L. Bergamaschi, E. C. D'Angelo, F. Donati, M. Giannella, S. Tedeschi, R. Pascale, M. Bartoletti, G. Tesini, M. Biffi, Front Pharmacol 2020, 11, 1124.R. Trigonis, N. Smith, S. Porter, E. Anderson, M. Jennings, R. Kapoor, C. Hage, S. Moiz, J. Garcia, O. Rahman, J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2022, 36, 414.B. Colvin, R. Rivosecchi, J. Heart and Lung Transplant. 2021, 40, S533.D. J. Douin, S. Shaefi, S. K. Brenner, S. Gupta, I. Park, F. L. Wright, K. S. Mathews, L. Chan, H. Al‐Samkari, S. Orfanos, Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2021, 18, 1917.J. I. Nunez, A. F. Gosling, B. O'Gara, K. F. Kennedy, P. Rycus, D. Abrams, D. Brodie, S. Shaefi, A. R. Garan, E. W. Grandin, Intensive Care Med. 2022, 48, 213.C. Gachet, J. Thromb. Haemostasis 2015, 13, S313.C. E. Hagemeyer, K. Peter, Curr. Pharm. Des. 2010, 16, 4119.R. Slack, S. Macdonald, J. Roper, R. Jenkins, R. Hatley, Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2022, 21, 60.J. Sharifi‐Rad, F. Sharopov, S. M. Ezzat, W. Zam, A. O. Ademiluyi, O. H. Oyeniran, C. O. Adetunji, O. I. Roli, J. Živković, M. Martorell, High Blood Pressure Cardiovasc. Prev. 2023, 30, 93.M. Dumantepe, C. Ozturk, J Card Surg 2022, 37, 492.A. Garcia, J. W. Gander, E. R. Gross, A. Reichstein, S. S. Sheth, C. J. Stolar, W. Middlesworth, J Pediatr Surg 2011, 46, 2021.P. Simons, Y. Guo, V. Bondu, S. L. Tigert, M. Harkins, S. Goodfellow, C. Tompkins, D. Chabot‐Richards, X. O. Yang, L. G. Bosc, Viruses 2021, 13, 1597.K. Shibata, T. Hashimoto, T. Miyazaki, A. Miyazaki, K. Nobe, Curr. Pharm. Des. 2019, 25, 242.B. Vaidya, M. K. Nayak, D. Dash, G. Agrawal, S. P. Vyas, Int. J. Pharm. 2011, 403, 254.C. Li, H. Du, A. Yang, S. Jiang, Z. Li, D. Li, J. L. Brash, H. Chen, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1703934.H. Yu, J. S. Palazzolo, Y. Ju, B. e. Niego, S. Pan, C. E. Hagemeyer, F. Caruso, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2022, 11, 2201151.A. Zenych, C. Jacqmarcq, R. Aid, L. Fournier, L. M. F. Ramirez, F. Chaubet, T. Bonnard, D. Vivien, D. Letourneur, C. Chauvierre, Biomaterials 2021, 277, 121102.Y. Huang, L. Yu, J. Ren, B. Gu, C. Longstaff, A. D. Hughes, S. A. Thom, X. Y. Xu, R. Chen, J. Controlled Release 2019, 300, 1.N. Zhang, C. Li, D. Zhou, C. Ding, Y. Jin, Q. Tian, X. Meng, K. Pu, Y. Zhu, Acta Biomater. 2018, 70, 227.E. Prince, S. Kheiri, Y. Wang, F. Xu, J. Cruickshank, V. Topolskaia, H. Tao, E. W. Young, A. P. McGuigan, D. W. Cescon, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2022, 11, 2101085.a) S. Soares, J. Sousa, A. Pais, C. Vitorino, Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 360;.b) K. Asawa, K. Ishihara, K. N. Ekdahl, B. Nilsson, Y. Teramura, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2008167.a) Z. Ma, B. Li, J. Peng, D. Gao, Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 434;.b) H. Zhang, J. K. Jackson, M. Chiao, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1703606.a) Y. Liu, G. Yang, Y. Hui, S. Ranaweera, C. X. Zhao, Small 2022, 18, 2106580;b) S. Zeibi Shirejini, A. Mohammadi, Org. Process Res. Dev. 2017, 21, 292.J. Zilberman‐Rudenko, J. L. Sylman, H. H. Lakshmanan, O. J. McCarty, J. Maddala, Cell Mol. Bioeng. 2017, 10, 16.H. B. Flores Marcial, J. Choi, D. Ham, J. Kim, P. Jeong, J. Choi, W. T. Park, Nano 2022, 10, 18.A. C. Hortelão, S. García‐Jimeno, M. Cano‐Sarabia, T. Patiño, D. Maspoch, S. Sanchez, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2002767.a) N. Kaur, P. Mathur, P. Yadav, S. Chakraborty, A. Shanavas, Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 237, 116170;.b) P. Mittal, H. Vardhan, G. Ajmal, G. V. Bonde, R. Kapoor, A. Mittal, B. Mishra, Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 2019, 45, 365.a) S. Guo, Y. Shi, Y. Liang, L. Liu, K. Sun, Y. Li, Asian J Pharm. Sci. 2021, 16, 551;.b) J. H. Senior, K. R. Trimble, R. Maskiewicz, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1991, 1070, 173.L. da Silveira Cavalcante, Q. Feng, I. Chin‐Yee, J. P. Acker, J. L. Holovati, J Liposome Res 2017, 27, 56.J. Szebeni, Mol. Immunol. 2014, 61, 163.a) D. Ricklin, J. D. Lambris, Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 1265;.b) S. M. Moghimi, A. J. Andersen, D. Ahmadvand, P. P. Wibroe, T. L. Andresen, A. C. Hunter, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2011, 63, 1000;.c) S. M. Moghimi, Z. S. Farhangrazi, Nanomed.: Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2013, 9, 458.M. Buscema, S. Matviykiv, T. Mészáros, G. Gerganova, A. Weinberger, U. Mettal, D. Mueller, F. Neuhaus, E. Stalder, T. Ishikawa, J. Controlled Release 2017, 264, 14.Y. Tang, X. Wang, J. Li, Y. Nie, G. Liao, Y. Yu, C. Li, ACS Nano 2019, 13, 13015.D. Sivadasan, M. H. Sultan, O. A. Madkhali, S. H. Alsabei, A. A. Alessa, Molecules 2022, 27, 1086.F. Zahednezhad, M. Saadat, H. Valizadeh, P. Zakeri‐Milani, B. Baradaran, J. Controlled Release 2019, 305, 194.H. Hatakeyama, H. Akita, H. Harashima, Biol. Pharm. Bull 2013, 36, 892.a) A. S. Ulrich, Biosci. Rep. 2002, 22, 129;.b) P. Laverman, O. C. Boerman, W. J. Oyen, E. T. M. Dams, G. Storm, F. H. Corstens, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 1999, 37, 225.a) H. Lv, S. Zhang, B. Wang, S. Cui, J. Yan, J. Controlled Release 2006, 114, 100;.b) K. Aramaki, Y. Watanabe, J. Takahashi, Y. Tsuji, A. Ogata, Y. Konno, Colloids Surf. A 2016, 506, 732.Y. Wang, J. Wang, M. Sun, J. Zhang, Y. Bi, Materials Advances 2022, 3, 2417.P. Trucillo, R. Campardelli, E. Reverchon, J. CO2 Util. 2017, 18, 181.S. Geng, B. Yang, G. Wang, G. Qin, S. Wada, J. Y. Wang, Nanotechnology 2014, 25, 275103.H. Hashemzadeh, H. Javadi, M. Darvishi, Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1837.H. Kitayama, Y. Takechi, N. Tamai, H. Matsuki, C. Yomota, H. Saito, Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2014, 62, 58.E. Chibowski, A. Szcześ, Adsorption 2016, 22, 755.M. E. Klegerman, in Functional Lipid Nanosystems in Cancer, Jenny Stanford Publishing, 2021, p. 449.K. Shimizu, Y. Takeuchi, K. Otsuka, T. Mori, Y. Narita, S. Takasugi, Y. Magata, Y. Matsumura, N. Oku, J. Controlled Release 2020, 323, 519.L. Belfiore, D. N. Saunders, M. Ranson, K. J. Thurecht, G. Storm, K. L. Vine, J. Controlled Release 2018, 277, 1.U. Bulbake, S. Doppalapudi, N. Kommineni, W. Khan, Pharmaceutics 2017, 9, 12.C. Zylberberg, S. Matosevic, Drug Delivery 2016, 23, 3319.R. Foulkes, E. Man, J. Thind, S. Yeung, A. Joy, C. Hoskins, Biomater. Sci. 2020, 8, 4653.

Journal

Advanced Functional Materials – Wiley

Published: Sep 1, 2023

Keywords: medical devices; nanomedicine; shear stress; targeted drug delivery; thrombosis

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Shear‐Responsive Drug Delivery Systems in Medical Devices: Focus on Thrombosis and Bleeding

Shear‐Responsive Drug Delivery Systems in Medical Devices: Focus on Thrombosis and Bleeding

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Shear‐Responsive Drug Delivery Systems in Medical Devices: Focus on Thrombosis and Bleeding

Shear‐Responsive Drug Delivery Systems in Medical Devices: Focus on Thrombosis and Bleeding

References (135)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies