| Literature DB >> 17437638 |
Zhong-zhao Teng1, Guang-yu Ji, Hong-jun Chu, Zhi-Yong Li, Liang-jian Zou, Zhi-yun Xu, Sheng-dong Huang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autogenous vein grafting is widely used in regular bypassing procedures. Due to its mismatch with the host artery in both mechanical property and geometry, the graft often over expands under high arterial blood pressure and forms a step-depth where eddy flow develops, thus causing restenosis, fibrous graft wall, etc. External stents, such as sheaths being used to cuff the graft, have been introduced to eliminate these mismatches and increase the patency. Although histological and immunochemical studies have shown some positive effects of the external stent, the mechanical mismatch under the protection of an external stent remains poorly analyzed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17437638 PMCID: PMC1860003 DOI: 10.1186/1475-925X-6-12
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Figure 1Schematic drawing of the grafting process (the silk thread is not shown here).
Maximum pressure under different axial stretch ratios in different group (mmHg)
| group m | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| HA | 20 | 40 | 80 | 100 | 120 |
| HV | 10 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 |
| HSM | 20 | 30 | 80 | 160 | 160 |
| HM | 50 | 100 | 150 | 180 | 180 |
The blood-fat level (mmol/L) (in each group n = 5)
| NDG | 1.67 ± 0.43 | 1.72 ± 0.45 | 1.72 ± 0.25 | 1.98 ± 0.55 | 2.02 ± 0.58 | |
| HH | 1.80 ± 0.20 | 1.88 ± 0.22 | 2.59 ± 0.76*# | 18.57 ± 1.25**## | 19.08 ± 1.31**## | |
| NDG | 1.06 ± 0.31 | 1.09 ± 0.45 | 1.11 ± 0.38 | 1.28 ± 0.35 | 1.36 ± 0.55 | |
| HH | 1.09 ± 0.15 | 1.12 ± 0.11 | 2.09 ± 0.87*# | 3.83 ± 1.75**## | 4.07 ± 1.54**## | |
| NDG | 0.61 ± 0.20 | 0.69 ± 0.26 | 0.65 ± 0.31 | 0.58 ± 0.17 | 0.76 ± 0.27 | |
| HH | 0.53 ± 0.07 | 0.55 ± 0.09 | 1.21 ± 0.35*# | 2.04 ± 1.11**## | 2.12 ± 1.23**## | |
| NDG | 0.93 ± 0.21 | 0.95 ± 0.33 | 1.01 ± 0.49 | 0.89 ± 0.27 | 0.98 ± 0.25 | |
| HH | 0.94 ± 0.26 | 1.06 ± 0.24 | 1.84 ± 0.36*# | 14.68 ± 1.42**## | 15.13 ± 1.64**## |
Asterisk denotes the comparison with 0-week (*: 0.01 < P < 0.05; **: P < 0.01); Derrick denotes the comparison with NDG at the same temporal point (#: 0.01 < P < 0.05; ##: P < 0.01).
Figure 2Experimental data points and regressed results (λ= 1.4, data from HA1, HV1, HSM1 and HM1).
The expansion rate in different pressure ranges (λ= 1.4)
| 20.20 ± 8.93 | 56.40 ± 7.34 | 82.43 ± 3.73 | |
| 16.55 ± 3.86 | 2.99 ± 0.92 | 0.45 ± 0.10 |
There is significant statistical difference between any two groups (P < 0.01).
Figure 3Comparison of compliance between grafts with external stent (HSM), without external stent (HM) and artery (HA). (* denotes 0.01 < P < 0.05; ** for P < 0.01).
Figure 4Variation of the venous compliance (HV) with pressure (λ=1.4).
Figure 5Thickness of intima and middle layer of HV, HSM and HM (* denotes 0.01 < P < 0.05).
Figure 6Collagen fiber in the graft wall (A: without external stent; B: with external stent; Stained with VB, × 200).
Cross section areas in load free state (mm2)
| 1.28 ± 0.11 | 2.36 ± 0.64 | 3.87 ± 0.17 | 18.15 ± 7.91 |
All groups are much significantly different from each other (P < 0.01).