Post-implantation shear stress assessment: an emerging tool for differentiation of bioresorbable scaffolds.
Absorbable Implants
Animals
Cardiovascular Agents
/ administration & dosage
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
Computer Simulation
Coronary Angiography
Coronary Circulation
Coronary Vessels
/ diagnostic imaging
Everolimus
/ administration & dosage
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Materials Testing
Models, Animal
Models, Cardiovascular
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Predictive Value of Tests
Prosthesis Design
Stress, Mechanical
Swine
Swine, Miniature
Tomography, Optical Coherence
/ methods
Bioresorbable scaffolds
Computational fluid dynamics
Scaffold design
Shear stress
Journal
The international journal of cardiovascular imaging
ISSN: 1875-8312
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100969716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
23
04
2018
accepted:
20
10
2018
pubmed:
15
11
2018
medline:
24
4
2019
entrez:
15
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Optical coherence tomography based computational flow dynamic (CFD) modeling provides detailed information about the local flow behavior in stented/scaffolded vessel segments. Our aim is to investigate the in-vivo effect of strut thickness and strut protrusion on endothelial wall shear stress (ESS) distribution in ArterioSorb Absorbable Drug-Eluting Scaffold (ArterioSorb) and Absorb everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb) devices that struts with similar morphology (quadratic structure) but different thickness. In three animals, six coronary arteries were treated with ArterioSorb. At different six animals, six coronary arteries were treated with Absorb. Following three-dimensional(3D) reconstruction of the coronary arteries, Newtonian steady flow simulation was performed and the ESS were estimated. Mixed effects models were used to compare ESS distribution in the two devices. There were 4591 struts in the analyzed 477 cross-sections in Absorb (strut thickness = 157 µm) and 3105 struts in 429 cross-sections in ArterioSorb (strut thickness = 95 µm) for the protrusion analysis. In cross-section level analysis, there was significant difference between the scaffolds in the protrusion distances. The protrusion was higher in Absorb (97% of the strut thickness) than in ArterioSorb (88% of the strut thickness). ESS was significantly higher in ArterioSorb (1.52 ± 0.34 Pa) than in Absorb (0.73 ± 2.19 Pa) (p = 0.001). Low- and very-low ESS data were seen more often in Absorb than in ArterioSorb. ArterioSorb is associated with a more favorable ESS distribution compared to the Absorb. These differences should be attributed to different strut thickness/strut protrusion that has significant effect on shear stress distribution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30426299
doi: 10.1007/s10554-018-1481-3
pii: 10.1007/s10554-018-1481-3
pmc: PMC6453863
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cardiovascular Agents
0
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
0
Everolimus
9HW64Q8G6G
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
409-418Références
Ann Biomed Eng. 2000 Apr;28(4):386-98
pubmed: 10870895
Circulation. 2001 Jun 12;103(23):2816-21
pubmed: 11401938
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Apr 16;41(8):1283-8
pubmed: 12706922
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005 Jul;65(3):374-80
pubmed: 15926182
Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):401-7
pubmed: 16119702
Ann Biomed Eng. 2009 Aug;37(8):1483-94
pubmed: 19472055
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Nov;3(11):1181-9
pubmed: 21087755
Circulation. 2010 Nov 30;122(22):2301-12
pubmed: 21098436
Eur Heart J. 2012 Jan;33(1):16-25b
pubmed: 22041548
Circulation. 2012 Jul 10;126(2):172-81
pubmed: 22723305
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;30(3):485-94
pubmed: 24458955
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Mar;7(3):315-24
pubmed: 24529931
J R Soc Interface. 2014 Feb 19;11(94):20131079
pubmed: 24554575
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Apr;7(2):180-9
pubmed: 24642998
EuroIntervention. 2015 Feb;10(10):1144-53
pubmed: 25042421
Int J Cardiol. 2015;186:178-85
pubmed: 25828109
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jul 14;66(2):125-35
pubmed: 26160628
Ann Biomed Eng. 2016 Feb;44(2):315-29
pubmed: 26178872
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Jun;32(6):871-83
pubmed: 26898315
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Sep 14;5(9):
pubmed: 27628570
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Oct 24;9(20):2167-2168
pubmed: 27692818
Circ J. 2016 Oct 25;80(11):2317-2326
pubmed: 27725525
Lancet. 2016 Nov 19;388(10059):2479-2491
pubmed: 27806897
EuroIntervention. 2017 Apr 20;12(17):2047-2056
pubmed: 28246059
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Sep;33(9):1313-1322
pubmed: 28365819
Eur Heart J. 2018 May 7;39(18):1602-1609
pubmed: 29409057