Why the study?
To numerically investigate the effect of a bare-metal stent on hemodynamics in the main branch of a coronary artery bifurcation with stenosis using computational fluid dynamics.
Does a one-part or two-part stent improve hemodynamic performance (wall shear stress) in a coronary artery bifurcation model?
Does a one-part or two-part stent improve hemodynamic performance (wall shear stress) in a coronary artery bifurcation model?
In a computational fluid dynamics model of a coronary bifurcation stenosis, a one-part stent resulted in more favorable wall shear stress profiles.
One-part stents merit further preclinical testing in bifurcations; leaves open translation to clinical outcomes.
Introduction: The effect of a bare-metal stent on the hemodynamics in the main branch of a coronary artery bifurcation with a particular type of stenosis was numerically investigated by the computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Methods: Three-dimensional idealized geometry of bifurcation was constructed in Catia modelling commercial software package. The Newtonian blood flow was assumed to be incompressible and laminar. CFD was utilized to calculate the shear stress and blood pressure distributions on the wall of main branch. In order to do the numerical simulations, a commercial software package named as COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3 was employed. Two types of stent , namely, one-part stent and two-part stent were applied to prevent the build-up and progression of the atherosclerotic plaques in the main branch. Results: A particular type of stenosis in the main branch was considered in this research. It occurred before and after the side branch. Moreover, it was found that the main branch with an inserted one-part stent had the smallest region with the wall shear stress (WSS) below 0.5 Pa which was the minimum WSS in the main branch without the stenosis. Conclusion: The use of a one-part stent in the main branch of a coronary artery bifurcation for the aforementioned type of stenosis is recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Razavi et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: