Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Hemodynamics-driven magnetoelastic vascular grafts for stenosis diagnosis

Nature Biotechnology volume 44, pages 406–417 (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Conventional approaches for vascular graft stenosis diagnostics, including X-ray angiography, magnetic resonance imaging and Doppler ultrasound, although highly accurate, are cumbersome, used intermittently and often do not detect stenosis early enough, leading to diagnosis only after substantial narrowing. Here we report a magnetoelastic vascular graft (MVG) for post-implantation stenosis diagnosis that is hemodynamics-driven, biocompatible and waterproof. It enables wireless, real-time and continuous diagnosis of stenosis by converting arterial hemodynamics into high-fidelity electrical signals. The MVGs were scalably manufactured with customizable diameters and tested in vivo in the femoral arteries of rats and swine through microsurgical anastomosis. The anastomosed MVGs restored blood flow and identified the location and severity of induced stenosis through artificial intelligence-assisted analysis. Furthermore, a 4-month in vivo study in rats verified the stability and biocompatibility of the MVGs in the host, with no evident signs of an adverse immune response. The MVG is expected to advance existing vascular graft solutions and improve vascular disease management.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: A hemodynamics-driven magnetoelastic vascular graft.
Fig. 2: Optimization and characterization of the magnetoelastic vascular grafts.
Fig. 3: In vivo hemodynamic sensing in rat models.
Fig. 4: In vivo demonstration of the magnetoelastic vascular grafts for stenosis diagnosis in swine models.
Fig. 5: Long-term biocompatibility studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its Supplementary Information. Raw imaging data are available in a publicly accessible repository (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28326497)53.

Code availability

As the code was adopted and modified on the basis of a previous publication, the source of the code is given in the Supplementary Information.

References

  1. Timmis, A. et al. European Society of Cardiology: cardiovascular disease statistics 2021. Eur. Heart J. 43, 716–799 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tsao, C. W. et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2023 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 147, e93–e621 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Beerkens, F. J. et al. Contemporary coronary artery bypass graft surgery and subsequent percutaneous revascularization. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 19, 195–208 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gutowski, P. et al. Arterial reconstruction with human bioengineered acellular blood vessels in patients with peripheral arterial disease. J. Vasc. Surg. 72, 1247–1258 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vachharajani, T. J., Taliercio, J. J. & Anvari, E. New devices and technologies for hemodialysis vascular access: a review. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 78, 116–124 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Niklason, L. E. & Lawson, J. H. Bioengineered human blood vessels. Science 370, eaaw8682 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kirkton, R. D. et al. Bioengineered human acellular vessels recellularize and evolve into living blood vessels after human implantation. Sci. Transl. Med. 11, eaau6934 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang, D. et al. Microfluidic bioprinting of tough hydrogel-based vascular conduits for functional blood vessels. Sci. Adv. 8, eabq6900 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Seifu, D. G., Purnama, A., Mequanint, K. & Mantovani, D. Small-diameter vascular tissue engineering. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10, 410–421 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Drews, J. D. et al. Spontaneous reversal of stenosis in tissue-engineered vascular grafts. Sci. Transl. Med. 12, eaax6919 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Moore, M. J., Tan, R. P., Yang, N., Rnjak-Kovacina, J. & Wise, S. G. Bioengineering artificial blood vessels from natural materials. Trends Biotechnol. 40, 693–707 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nezarati, R. M., Eifert, M. B., Dempsey, D. K. & Cosgriff-Hernandez, E. Electrospun vascular grafts with improved compliance matching to native vessels. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 103, 313–323 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Quin, J. A. et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting transit time flow measurement: graft patency and clinical outcomes. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 112, 701–707 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim, K.-B. et al. Twenty-year experience with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and early postoperative angiography. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 109, 1112–1119 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolf, F. et al. MR and PET–CT monitoring of tissue-engineered vascular grafts in the ovine carotid artery. Biomaterials 216, 119228 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fananapazir, G. et al. Screening for transplant renal artery stenosis: ultrasound-based stenosis probability stratification. Am. J. Roentgenol. 209, 1064–1073 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Frija, G. et al. How to improve access to medical imaging in low- and middle-income countries? eClinicalMedicine 38, 101034 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Weiss, D. J. et al. Global maps of travel time to healthcare facilities. Nat. Med. 26, 1835–1838 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Elbadawi, A. et al. Outcomes of reoperative coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the United States. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 9, e016282 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhou, Y. et al. Giant magnetoelastic effect in soft systems for bioelectronics. Nat. Mater. 20, 1670–1676 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhao, X. et al. A reconfigurable and conformal liquid sensor for ambulatory cardiac monitoring. Nat. Commun. 15, 8492 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhao, X. et al. Permanent fluidic magnets for liquid bioelectronics. Nat. Mater. 23, 703–710 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim, Y. & Zhao, X. Magnetic soft materials and robots. Chem. Rev. 122, 5317–5364 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu, J. et al. Bioresorbable shape-adaptive structures for ultrasonic monitoring of deep-tissue homeostasis. Science 383, 1096–1103 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Walden, R., L’Italien, G. J., Megerman, J. & Abbott, W. M. Matched elastic properties and successful arterial grafting. Arch. Surg. 115, 1166–1169 (1980).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ku, H.-C., Lee, S.-Y., Wu, Y.-K. A., Yang, K.-C. & Su, M.-J. A model of cardiac remodeling through constriction of the abdominal aorta in rats. J. Vis. Exp. 2, e54818 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rocha, R. V. et al. Multiple arterial grafting is associated with better outcomes for coronary artery bypass grafting patients. Circulation 138, 2081–2090 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ma, Y. et al. Relation between blood pressure and pulse wave velocity for human arteries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11144–11149 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Seo, Y. K. et al. Correlation between scaffold in vivo biocompatibility and in vitro cell compatibility using mesenchymal and mononuclear cell cultures. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 25, 513–522 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gelman, S., Warner, D. S. & Warner, M. A. Venous function and central venous pressure: a physiologic story. Anesthesiology 108, 735–748 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Oglat, A. A. et al. A review of medical doppler ultrasonography of blood flow in general and especially in common carotid artery. J. Med. Ultrasound 26, 3–13 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Shorten, C. & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. A survey on image data augmentation for deep learning. J. Big Data 6, 60 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Szegedy, C. et al. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proc. 2015 IEEE Conference On Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 1–9 (Curran Associates, 2015).

  34. MATLAB. Classify time series using wavelet analysis and deep learning. MATLAB Help Center https://www.mathworks.com/help/wavelet/ug/classify-time-series-using-wavelet-analysis-and-deep-learning.html (2024).

  35. Delwatta, S. L. et al. Reference values for selected hematological, biochemical and physiological parameters of Sprague–Dawley rats at the animal house, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Animal Model Exp. Med. 1, 250–254 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Charles River Laboratories. CD IGS rat model information sheet https://www.criver.com/resources/cd-igs-rat-model-information-sheet (Charles River, 2007).

  37. de Kort, M. et al. Historical control data for hematology parameters obtained from toxicity studies performed on different Wistar rat strains: acceptable value ranges, definition of severity degrees, and vehicle effects. Toxicol. Res. Appl. 4, 2397847320931484 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Seo, S. et al. Artificial neural network for Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction (SEMAC) MRI. Magn. Reson. Med. 84, 263–276 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee, E. M. et al. Improving MR image quality in patients with metallic implants. Radiographics 41, E126–E137 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kwon, K., Kim, D., Kim, B. & Park, H. Unsupervised learning of a deep neural network for metal artifact correction using dual-polarity readout gradients. Magn. Reson. Med. 83, 124–138 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Alexander, J. H. & Smith, P. K. Coronary-artery bypass grafting. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 1954–1964 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Enriquez-Marulanda, A. et al. The evolution and future directions of bypass surgery. J. Neurosurg. 142, 40–51 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ates, H. C. et al. End-to-end design of wearable sensors. Nat. Rev. Mater. 7, 887–907 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Moin, A. et al. A wearable biosensing system with in-sensor adaptive machine learning for hand gesture recognition. Nat. Electron. 4, 54–63 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ballard, Z., Brown, C., Madni, A. M. & Ozcan, A. Machine learning and computation-enabled intelligent sensor design. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 556–565 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Varghese, C., Harrison, E. M., O’Grady, G. & Topol, E. J. Artificial intelligence in surgery. Nat. Med. 30, 1257–1268 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kwon, K. et al. A battery-less wireless implant for the continuous monitoring of vascular pressure, flow rate and temperature. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 7, 1215–1228 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Boutry, C. M. et al. Biodegradable and flexible arterial-pulse sensor for the wireless monitoring of blood flow. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 47–57 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Park, K. et al. Resealable antithrombotic artificial vascular graft integrated with a self-healing blood flow sensor. ACS Nano 17, 7296–7310 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang, C. et al. Monitoring of the central blood pressure waveform via a conformal ultrasonic device. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2, 687–695 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Lin, M. et al. A fully integrated wearable ultrasound system to monitor deep tissues in moving subjects. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 448–457 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sykes, M. & Sachs, D. H. Progress in xenotransplantation: overcoming immune barriers. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 18, 745–761 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Chen, G. et al. Raw imaging data. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m6089.figshare.28326497 (2025).

Download references

Acknowledgements

J.C. acknowledges the Vernroy Makoto Watanabe Excellence in Research Award at the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, the American Heart Association Innovative Project Award (award ID, 23IPA1054908), the American Heart Association Transformational Project Award (award ID, 23TPA1141360), the American Heart Association’s Second Century Early Faculty Independence Award (award ID, 23SCEFIA1157587), the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award (award ID, N00014-24-1-2065), National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant (award ID, R01 HL175135 and R01 CA287326) and National Science Foundation Grant (award no. 2425858). S.L. acknowledges the support from NIH (grant no. NS126918) and from the Broad Stem Cell Research Center, the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA. G.C. acknowledges the Amazon Doctoral Student Fellowship from Amazon AWS and the UCLA Science Hub for Humanity and Artificial Intelligence. G.C. also acknowledges the Predoctoral Fellowship from the American Heart Association and The VIVA Foundation (award ID, 24PRE1193744). Y.-R.L. acknowledges the UCLA MIMG M. John Pickett Post-Doctoral Fellow Award, a CIRM-BSCRC Postdoctoral Fellowship and a UCLA Sydney Finegold Postdoctoral Award. We also acknowledge the MRI guidance provided by S. Xu and the Crump Preclinical Imaging Technology Center with the support from NIH Cancer Center Support Grant (grant no. 2 P30 CA016042-44) and NIH S10 Shared Instrumentation for Animal Research Grant (grant no. 1 S10 OD026917-01A1).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Guorui Chen, Tzuchun Chung.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Guorui Chen, Tzuchun Chung, Zeyang Liu, Yan-Ruide Li, Kamryn Scott, Xun Zhao, Jarod Carol, Soomin Park, Yihao Zhou, Xinyang Ge, Song Li & Jun Chen

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Wi Jin Kim & Geoffrey P. Colby

  3. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Song Li

Authors
  1. Guorui Chen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tzuchun Chung
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zeyang Liu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yan-Ruide Li
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kamryn Scott
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xun Zhao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jarod Carol
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Soomin Park
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yihao Zhou
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Wi Jin Kim
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Xinyang Ge
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Geoffrey P. Colby
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Song Li
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Jun Chen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.C. and S.L. conceived the idea and guided the entire project. G.C., J.C., T.C., Z.L. and S.L. designed the experiments, analyzed the data, drew the figures and composed the manuscript. G.C., T.C., X.Z., W.K., S.P. and G.P.C. contributed to the animal study. T.C., Z.L. and S.L. performed the biocompatibility tests. G.C., X.Z., J.C., Y.Z. and X.G. contributed to the device design, fabrication and characterization. Y.-R.L. and G.C. performed the immune profiling experiment. J.C., S.L., G.P.C. and S.P. contributed to the funding acquisition. S.P., K.S., G.C., G.P.C., J.C. and S.L. revised the manuscript. All authors have read the paper, agreed to its content and approved the final submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Song Li or Jun Chen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A patent application related to this work has been filed by UCLA, listing J.C., S.L. and G.C. as the inventors. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Biotechnology thanks Tohid Didar, Narutoshi Hibino, Bozhi Tian and Sheng Xu for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Arterial anastomosis on the swine femoral artery.

a, b, Schematic illustration of femoral artery anastomosis in a swine model, illustrating (a) surgical exposure of the femoral artery and (b) the end-to-end arterial anastomosis procedure. Partially created with BioRender. c, Photograph of the surgeon’s hands performing the end-to-end arterial anastomosis on the swine femoral artery to anastomose the MVG. Scale bar, 6 mm. d–f, Clear surgical view of the step-by-step procedures of anastomosing the MVG to the swine femoral artery. (d) Precise dissection of muscle and connective tissues was performed to expose the targeted segment of the femoral artery for replacement. Scale bar, 4 mm. (e) MVG was anastomosed to the proximal end of the femoral artery, ensuring precise vascular graft alignment, secure suturing, and thorough flushing and inspection. Scale bar, 4 mm. (f) Similarly, the MVG was anastomosed to the distal end of the femoral artery, completing vascular graft integration and ensuring seamless arterial flow to maintain physiological circulatory function. Scale bar, 4 mm. g, Clear surgical view of the successfully anastomosed MVG, which resulted in the immediate and seamless resumption of blood circulation through the graft. Scale bar, 2 mm.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Diagnostic angiogram and postoperative hemodynamic sensing.

a–d, Digital subtraction angiography before the arterial anastomoses. (a) Contrast dye was administered through the glide catheter to improve the visualization of arterial structures. (b) The blood flowed through the femoral artery, (c) revealing the target implantation site, (d) and reaching the distal vasculature. Scale bars, 8 mm. e–h, Digital subtraction angiography after the arterial anastomoses. (e) Contrast dye was administered through the glide catheter to improve the visualization of arterial structures. (f) These images outline the patency of the MVG, verifying the vessel’s openness, structural integrity, (g) and anterograde blood flow following the MVG anastomoses. (h) The final image represents the late arterial phase and demonstrates the contrast agent’s progression distally into the vasculature, indicative of good flow and proper functioning of the MVG. Furthermore, the lack of evidence suggesting unwanted platelet aggregation and thrombus formation indicates appropriate biocompatibility. Scale bars, 8 mm. i–l, The MVG-generated hemodynamic signals were recorded after arterial anastomosis under different barrier conditions, including (i) no barrier, (j) one layer, (k) two layers, and (l) three layers of barriers. Representative of three (a-h) experiments.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Long-term studies on rats.

a, b, The rats with MVGs anastomosed to the femoral artery behaved and moved normally with no appreciable skin necrosis or swelling for up to 120 days post-implantation. Scale bars, 2 cm. c, The ultrasound probe is positioned above the femoral incision area to evaluate the patency of the anastomosed MVG. Partially created with BioRender. d, e, (d) The original Doppler ultrasound image alongside (e) the vascular color flow image captured the state of the anastomosed MVG two weeks post-surgery. f, g, (f) The original Doppler ultrasound image alongside (g) the vascular color flow image captured the state of the anastomosed MVG four weeks post-surgery. The use of color gradients in these images illustrates the blood flow, demonstrating the MVG’s patency during the early stages of recovery. These images provide critical insights into the graft’s immediate function and its integration within the host’s vascular system, showcasing the preservation of blood flow and the absence of apparent major obstructions. h, The photograph depicts the femoral incision area post-implantation, showcasing wound healing with no obvious signs of wound infection or inflammation. Scale bar, 1 cm. i, An infrared thermal image of the femoral incision area reveals an even temperature distribution. This uniform thermal profile is indicative of a healthy healing process, with no obvious signs of excessive heat that could denote infection or inflammation. Scale bar, 2 cm.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Immunofluorescence analysis of rat tissue samples after 120 days of implantation.

a, b, (a) Nuclei (DAPI) and (b) macrophage (CD68) markers in surrounding tissue samples from the MVG group. Scale bars, 25 µm. c, d, (c) Nuclei (DAPI) and (d) T cell (CD3) markers in surrounding tissue samples from the MVG group. Scale bars, 25 µm. e, f, (e) Nuclei (DAPI) and (f) macrophage (CD68) markers in surrounding tissue samples from the control group. Scale bars, 25 µm. g, h, (g) Nuclei (DAPI) and (h) T cell (CD3) markers in surrounding tissue samples from the control group. Scale bars, 25 µm. The dashed boxes (b, d, f, h) highlight the corresponding markers. Representative of three (a-h) experiments. i–l, Endothelial cell markers in the vessel sample near the MVG. Scale bars, 25 µm. These four immunofluorescence images represent different regions of the vascular endothelium within vessel samples. m–p, Endothelial cell markers in the natural vessel sample from the control group. Scale bars, 25 µm. These four immunofluorescence images represent different regions of the vascular endothelium within vessel samples.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Histology analysis of rat organ samples after 120 days of implantation.

a–e, (a) Histology analysis of rat heart samples after 120 days of implantation, including H&E-stained sections of the (b) MVG group and (c) the control group, and MT-stained sections of the (d) MVG group and (e) the control group. Scale bars, 40 µm. f–j, (f) Histology analysis of rat brain samples after 120 days of implantation, including H&E-stained sections of the (g) MVG group and (h) the control group, and MT-stained sections of the (i) MVG group and (j) the control group. Scale bars, 40 µm. k–o, (k) Histology analysis of rat kidney samples after 120 days of implantation, including H&E-stained sections of the (l) MVG group and (m) the control group, and MT-stained sections of the (n) MVG group and (o) the control group. Scale bars, 40 µm. p–t, (p) Histology analysis of rat liver samples after 120 days of implantation, including H&E-stained sections of the (q) MVG group and (r) the control group, and MT-stained sections of the (s) MVG group and (t) the control group. Scale bars, 40 µm. Representative of three (b-e, g-j, l-o, q-t) experiments. Partially created with BioRender.com.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Quantification of T cell phenotypes.

a–c, Immune cells from (a) blood, (b) spleen, and (c) surrounding tissue samples were analyzed for T cell phenotype quantification. Partially created with BioRender. d–f, Percentages of activated CD4+ T cell (left) and naive CD4+ T cell (right) relative to CD4+ T cells in (d) blood, (e) spleen, and (f) surrounding tissue samples. g–i, Percentages of helper T cell (left) and regulatory T cell (right) relative to the CD4+ T cells in (g) blood, (h) spleen, and (i) surrounding tissue samples. j–l, Percentages of activated CD8+ T cell (left) and naive CD8+ T cell (right) percentages relative to CD8+ T cells in (j) blood, (k) spleen, and (l) surrounding tissue samples. Data (d-l) are presented as mean ± s.d.; n = 3 from three rats. Significance was determined by a two-tailed t-test. N.S., not significant.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Quantification of macrophage polarization.

a, b, Immune cells from (a) spleen and (b) surrounding tissue samples were analyzed for macrophage polarization. Partially created with BioRender. c, d, Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of M1 macrophage marker CD80 in (c) spleen and (d) surrounding tissue samples. e, f, MFI of M2 macrophage marker CD163 in (e) spleen and (f) surrounding tissue samples. Data (c-f) are presented as mean ± s.d.; n = 3 from three rats. Significance was determined by a two-tailed t-test. N.S., not significant.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Hematology analysis of rat blood samples after 120 days of implantation.

a-b, Detailed experimental procedure for hematology analysis, (a) encompassing the collection of blood samples from the animals, (b) serum isolation, and comprehensive analytical assessments. Partially created with BioRender. c, Albumin concentration of the experiment animal and the control animal. d, Alanine transaminase concentration of the experiment animal and the control animal. e, Aspartate aminotransferase concentration of the experiment animal and the control animal. f, Total bilirubin concentration of the experiment animal and the control animal. g, Total protein concentration of the experiment animal and the control animal. h, Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentration of the experiment animal and the control animal. i, Globulin concentration of the experiment animal and the control animal. j, BUN/creatinine ratio of the experiment animal and the control animal. k, Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration of the experiment animal and the control animal. l, Mean corpuscular volume of the experiment animal and the control animal. m, Mean corpuscular hemoglobin of the experiment animal and the control animal. n, Red blood cells of the experiment animal and the control animal. Data (c-n) are presented as mean ± s.d.; n = 3 from three blood samples.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Supplementary Figs. 1–84, Supplementary Tables 1–5, Supplementary Notes 1–31 and Supplementary Video Captions 1–4.

Reporting Summary (download PDF )

Supplementary Video 1 (download MP4 )

Doppler ultrasound demonstrating patency of the MVG anastomosed to the rat femoral artery.

Supplementary Video 2 (download MP4 )

A clear surgical view of the MVG anastomosed to the swine femoral artery.

Supplementary Video 3 (download MP4 )

Digital subtraction angiography demonstrating blood flow through the MVG anastomosed to the swine femoral artery.

Supplementary Video 4 (download MP4 )

Diagnostic angiogram demonstrating blood flow through the anastomosed MVG into the distal swine vasculature.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, G., Chung, T., Liu, Z. et al. Hemodynamics-driven magnetoelastic vascular grafts for stenosis diagnosis. Nat Biotechnol 44, 406–417 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02619-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02619-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing