TY - JOUR
T1 - A method of assessing peripheral stent abrasiveness under cyclic deformations experienced during limb movement
AU - Keiser, Courtney
AU - Maleckis, Kaspars
AU - Struczewska, Pauline
AU - Jadidi, Majid
AU - MacTaggart, Jason
AU - Kamenskiy, Alexey
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Acta Materialia Inc.
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - Poor outcomes of peripheral arterial disease stenting are often attributed to the inability of stents to accommodate the complex biomechanics of the flexed lower limb. Abrasion damage caused by rubbing of the stent against the artery wall during limb movement plays a significant role in reconstruction failure but has not been characterized. Our goals were to develop a method of assessing the abrasiveness of peripheral nitinol stents and apply it to several commercial devices. Misago, AbsolutePro, Innova, Zilver, SmartControl, SmartFlex, and Supera stents were deployed inside electrospun nanofibrillar tubes with femoropopliteal artery-mimicking mechanical properties and subjected to cyclic axial compression (25%), bending (90°), and torsion (26°/cm) equivalent to five life-years of severe limb flexions. Abrasion was assessed using an abrasion damage score (ADS, range 1–7) for each deformation mode. Misago produced the least abrasion and no stent fractures (ADS 3). Innova caused small abrasion under compression and torsion but large damage under bending (ADS 7). Supera performed well under bending and compression but caused damage under torsion (ADS 8). AbsolutePro produced significant abrasion under bending and compression but less damage under torsion (ADS 12). Zilver fractured under all three deformations and severely abraded the tube under bending and compression (ADS 15). SmartControl and SmartFlex fractured under all three deformations and produced significant abrasion due to strut penetration (ADS 20 and 21). ADS strongly correlated with clinical 12-month primary patency and target lesion revascularization rates, and the described method of assessing peripheral stent abrasiveness can guide device selection and development. Statement of significance: Poor outcomes of peripheral arterial disease stenting are related to the inability of stents to accommodate the complex biomechanics of the flexed lower limb. Abrasion damage caused by rubbing of the stent against the artery wall during limb movement plays a significant role in reconstruction failure but has not been characterized. Our study presents the first attempt at assessing peripheral stent abrasiveness, and the proposed method is applied to compare the abrasion damage caused by Misago, AbsolutePro, Innova, Zilver, SmartControl, SmartFlex, and Supera peripheral stents using artery-mimicking synthetic tubes and cyclic deformations equivalent to five life-years of severe limb flexions. The abrasion damage caused by stents strongly correlates with their clinical 12-month primary patency and target lesion revascularization rates, and the described methodology can be used as a cost-effective and controlled way of assessing stent performance, which can guide device selection and development.
AB - Poor outcomes of peripheral arterial disease stenting are often attributed to the inability of stents to accommodate the complex biomechanics of the flexed lower limb. Abrasion damage caused by rubbing of the stent against the artery wall during limb movement plays a significant role in reconstruction failure but has not been characterized. Our goals were to develop a method of assessing the abrasiveness of peripheral nitinol stents and apply it to several commercial devices. Misago, AbsolutePro, Innova, Zilver, SmartControl, SmartFlex, and Supera stents were deployed inside electrospun nanofibrillar tubes with femoropopliteal artery-mimicking mechanical properties and subjected to cyclic axial compression (25%), bending (90°), and torsion (26°/cm) equivalent to five life-years of severe limb flexions. Abrasion was assessed using an abrasion damage score (ADS, range 1–7) for each deformation mode. Misago produced the least abrasion and no stent fractures (ADS 3). Innova caused small abrasion under compression and torsion but large damage under bending (ADS 7). Supera performed well under bending and compression but caused damage under torsion (ADS 8). AbsolutePro produced significant abrasion under bending and compression but less damage under torsion (ADS 12). Zilver fractured under all three deformations and severely abraded the tube under bending and compression (ADS 15). SmartControl and SmartFlex fractured under all three deformations and produced significant abrasion due to strut penetration (ADS 20 and 21). ADS strongly correlated with clinical 12-month primary patency and target lesion revascularization rates, and the described method of assessing peripheral stent abrasiveness can guide device selection and development. Statement of significance: Poor outcomes of peripheral arterial disease stenting are related to the inability of stents to accommodate the complex biomechanics of the flexed lower limb. Abrasion damage caused by rubbing of the stent against the artery wall during limb movement plays a significant role in reconstruction failure but has not been characterized. Our study presents the first attempt at assessing peripheral stent abrasiveness, and the proposed method is applied to compare the abrasion damage caused by Misago, AbsolutePro, Innova, Zilver, SmartControl, SmartFlex, and Supera peripheral stents using artery-mimicking synthetic tubes and cyclic deformations equivalent to five life-years of severe limb flexions. The abrasion damage caused by stents strongly correlates with their clinical 12-month primary patency and target lesion revascularization rates, and the described methodology can be used as a cost-effective and controlled way of assessing stent performance, which can guide device selection and development.
KW - Abrasion
KW - Damage
KW - Femoropopliteal artery
KW - Restenosis
KW - Stent
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139310908&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85139310908&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.09.044
DO - 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.09.044
M3 - Article
C2 - 36162765
AN - SCOPUS:85139310908
SN - 1742-7061
VL - 153
SP - 331
EP - 341
JO - Acta Biomaterialia
JF - Acta Biomaterialia
ER -