TY - JOUR
T1 - An Experimental Evaluation of Device/Arterial Wall Compliance Mismatch for Four Stent-Graft Devices and a Multi-layer Flow Modulator Device for the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
AU - Morris, L.
AU - Stefanov, F.
AU - Hynes, N.
AU - Diethrich, E. B.
AU - Sultan, S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Authors.
PY - 2016/1/1
Y1 - 2016/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Abdominal aortic aneurysm
KW - Compliance
KW - Endograft
KW - Endovascular aortic repair
KW - Multilayer flow modulator
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956582879&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.07.041
DO - 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.07.041
M3 - Article
C2 - 26363972
AN - SCOPUS:84956582879
SN - 1078-5884
VL - 51
SP - 44
EP - 55
JO - European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
JF - European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
IS - 1
ER -