L Morris1, F Stefanov1, N Hynes2, E B Diethrich3, S Sultan4. 1. Galway Medical Technologies Centre (GMedTech), Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Galway Mayo Institute of Technology, Galway, Ireland. 2. Galway Clinic, Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland Affiliated Hospital, Doughiska, Galway, Ireland. 3. Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Arizona Heart Foundation, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 4. Galway Clinic, Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland Affiliated Hospital, Doughiska, Galway, Ireland; Western Vascular Institute, Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Galway, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Electronic address: sherif.sultan@hse.ie.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/ BACKGROUND: To investigate experimentally the arterial wall/device compliance mismatch of four stent-graft devices and a multilayer flow modulator within the supra- and infrarenal locations for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Five devices (MFM, EndurantII, Excluder, Zenith, and Fortron) were tested under physiological flow conditions within a flow simulator system comprising of a patient-specific thin-walled flexible AAA perfusion model with replicated intraluminal thrombus, supported by the spinal column. Devices were submitted to circumferential force tests and implanted in the perfusion model for circumferential arterial pressure/diameter measurements. Parameters, including radial resistive force, supra-/infrarenal compliance, pulsatile arterial energy loss (PAEL), pulse wave velocity (PWV), and wave reflection coefficient (Γ), were computed to characterise the devices' performance. RESULTS: The Zenith and EndurantII devices had the highest radial resistive force (up to 3 N/cm), while the Fortron device had the lowest (0.11 N/cm). Supra- and infrarenal compliance varied between 6.9-5.1 × 10(-4)/mmHg and 4.8-5.4 × 10(-4)/mmHg, respectively. Two devices (EndurantII and Excluder) significantly decreased infrarenal compliance by 13-26% (p < .001). Four devices increased the PAEL by 13-44% (p < .006). The PWV ranged from 10.9 m/s (MFM; p = .164) to 15.1 m/s (EndurantII; p < .001). There was an increase of 8-238% (p < .001) in the reflection coefficient for all devices. CONCLUSION: Commercially available endovascular devices lower the aortic wall compliance after implantation. The MFM was found to be the most compliant in the suprarenal region, while the Fortron device was the most compliant in the infrarenal region. Choosing the most compliant devices for treating AAAs produces positive gains in the aortic elastic recoil, thus minimising the device related complications.
OBJECTIVE/ BACKGROUND: To investigate experimentally the arterial wall/device compliance mismatch of four stent-graft devices and a multilayer flow modulator within the supra- and infrarenal locations for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Five devices (MFM, EndurantII, Excluder, Zenith, and Fortron) were tested under physiological flow conditions within a flow simulator system comprising of a patient-specific thin-walled flexible AAA perfusion model with replicated intraluminal thrombus, supported by the spinal column. Devices were submitted to circumferential force tests and implanted in the perfusion model for circumferential arterial pressure/diameter measurements. Parameters, including radial resistive force, supra-/infrarenal compliance, pulsatile arterial energy loss (PAEL), pulse wave velocity (PWV), and wave reflection coefficient (Γ), were computed to characterise the devices' performance. RESULTS: The Zenith and EndurantII devices had the highest radial resistive force (up to 3 N/cm), while the Fortron device had the lowest (0.11 N/cm). Supra- and infrarenal compliance varied between 6.9-5.1 × 10(-4)/mmHg and 4.8-5.4 × 10(-4)/mmHg, respectively. Two devices (EndurantII and Excluder) significantly decreased infrarenal compliance by 13-26% (p < .001). Four devices increased the PAEL by 13-44% (p < .006). The PWV ranged from 10.9 m/s (MFM; p = .164) to 15.1 m/s (EndurantII; p < .001). There was an increase of 8-238% (p < .001) in the reflection coefficient for all devices. CONCLUSION: Commercially available endovascular devices lower the aortic wall compliance after implantation. The MFM was found to be the most compliant in the suprarenal region, while the Fortron device was the most compliant in the infrarenal region. Choosing the most compliant devices for treating AAAs produces positive gains in the aortic elastic recoil, thus minimising the device related complications.
Authors: Karen M Meess; Richard L Izzo; Maciej L Dryjski; Richard E Curl; Linda M Harris; Michael Springer; Adnan H Siddiqui; Stephen Rudin; Ciprian N Ionita Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2017-03-13
Authors: Pavlo Yevtushenko; Florian Hellmeier; Jan Bruening; Sarah Nordmeyer; Volkmar Falk; Christoph Knosalla; Marcus Kelm; Titus Kuehne; Leonid Goubergrits Journal: Biophys J Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Emmanouil Agrafiotis; Markus A Geith; Mohammad A Golkani; Vera Hergesell; Gerhard Sommer; Sotirios Spiliopoulos; Gerhard A Holzapfel Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2021-09-25 Impact factor: 2.663
Authors: Hector W L de Beaufort; Margherita Coda; Michele Conti; Theodorus M J van Bakel; Foeke J H Nauta; Ettore Lanzarone; Frans L Moll; Joost A van Herwaarden; Ferdinando Auricchio; Santi Trimarchi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 3.240