BACKGROUND: Compliance mismatch between native artery and prosthetic graft used for infrainguinal bypass is implicated in the aetiology of graft failure. The aim was to quantify the elastic properties of a new compliant poly(carbonate)polyurethane (CPU) vascular graft, and to compare the compliance properties of grafts made from CPU, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), Dacron and human saphenous vein with that of human muscular artery. METHODS: A pulsatile flow phantom was used to perfuse vessel and prosthetic graft segments at physiological pulse pressure and flow. Intraluminal pressure was measured using a Millar Mikro-tip catheter transducer and vessel wall motion was determined with duplex ultrasonography using an echo-locked wall-tracking system. Diametrical compliance and a stiffness index were then calculated for each type of conduit over mean pressures ranging from 30 to 100 mmHg by 10-mmHg increments. RESULTS: The compliance values of CPU and artery (mean over the pressure range) were similar (mean(s.d.) 8.1(0.4) and 8.0(5.9) per cent per mmHg x 10(-2) respectively), although the elastic behaviour of artery was anisotropic unlike CPU, which was isotropic. Dacron and ePTFE grafts had lower compliance values (1.8(1.2) and 1.2(0.3)per cent per mmHg x 10(-2) respectively, averaged over the pressure range). In both these cases, compliance and stiffness differed significantly from that of artery over a mean pressure range of 30-90 mmHg. Human saphenous vein exhibited anisotropic behaviour and, although compliant at low pressure (30 mmHg), was markedly incompliant at higher pressures. CONCLUSION: Compliant polyurethane grafts offer a greater degree of compliance match than either ePTFE or Dacron.
BACKGROUND: Compliance mismatch between native artery and prosthetic graft used for infrainguinal bypass is implicated in the aetiology of graft failure. The aim was to quantify the elastic properties of a new compliant poly(carbonate)polyurethane (CPU) vascular graft, and to compare the compliance properties of grafts made from CPU, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), Dacron and human saphenous vein with that of human muscular artery. METHODS: A pulsatile flow phantom was used to perfuse vessel and prosthetic graft segments at physiological pulse pressure and flow. Intraluminal pressure was measured using a Millar Mikro-tip catheter transducer and vessel wall motion was determined with duplex ultrasonography using an echo-locked wall-tracking system. Diametrical compliance and a stiffness index were then calculated for each type of conduit over mean pressures ranging from 30 to 100 mmHg by 10-mmHg increments. RESULTS: The compliance values of CPU and artery (mean over the pressure range) were similar (mean(s.d.) 8.1(0.4) and 8.0(5.9) per cent per mmHg x 10(-2) respectively), although the elastic behaviour of artery was anisotropic unlike CPU, which was isotropic. Dacron and ePTFE grafts had lower compliance values (1.8(1.2) and 1.2(0.3)per cent per mmHg x 10(-2) respectively, averaged over the pressure range). In both these cases, compliance and stiffness differed significantly from that of artery over a mean pressure range of 30-90 mmHg. Human saphenous vein exhibited anisotropic behaviour and, although compliant at low pressure (30 mmHg), was markedly incompliant at higher pressures. CONCLUSION: Compliant polyurethane grafts offer a greater degree of compliance match than either ePTFE or Dacron.
Authors: E Tamimi; D C Ardila; D G Haskett; T Doetschman; M J Slepian; R S Kellar; J P Vande Geest Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Sandip Sarkar; Thomas Schmitz-Rixen; George Hamilton; Alexander M Seifalian Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2007-03-06 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Edouard Semaan; Michael Markl; S Chris Malaisrie; Alex Barker; Bradley Allen; Patrick McCarthy; James C Carr; Jeremy D Collins Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Ehab Akram Tamimi; Diana Catalina Ardila; Burt D Ensley; Robert S Kellar; Jonathan Vande Geest Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 2.097