Key result
In a computational fluid dynamics analysis of six carotid stent geometries, Type VI (resembling Acculink) demonstrated the best overall hemodynamic performance based on a scoring system.
Why the study?
Restenosis after carotid stenting is heavily influenced by stent strut configuration, motivating an evaluation of hemodynamic performance across different geometrical designs.
Which geometrical carotid stent strut configuration provides the best hemodynamic performance in computational models?
Which geometrical carotid stent strut configuration provides the best hemodynamic performance in computational models?
Computational fluid dynamics modeling suggests that stent strut geometry significantly impacts hemodynamic parameters, with the Acculink-like design showing the most favorable profile.
Stent strut geometry may influence carotid hemodynamics in CFD models; leaves open optimal design for clinical outcomes.
Stent implantation is an alternative invasive technique for treating the narrowed artery or stenosis in carotid artery to restore blood to the brain. However, the restenosis process is usually observed after a few weeks of carotid angioplasty and stenting due to abnormal progression of atherosclerosis and thrombosis. Many studies reported that the activity of atherosclerosis and thrombosis is majorly influenced by the geometrical strut configuration. Thus, this study was carried out to determine the hemodynamic performance on different geometrical stent strut configurations based on numerical modelling and statistical analyses. In this study, there are six stent types with different geometry that resembles the existing stent, namely as Type I, Type II, Type III, Type IV, Type V and Type VI which are resembling to Exponent (Medtronic), Precise (Cordis), Protg (ev3), Vivexx Carotid Stent (C. R. Bard), Zilver Stent (Cook) and Acculink (Abbott Vascular), respectively. The stent strut configurations were 3-D modelled and simulated in different physiological conditions; normal blood pressure (NBP), pre-hypertension (PH) and hypertension stage one (HS1) through computational fluid dynamic (CFD) method. The hemodynamic performance of stent was analyzed based on parameters namely time averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS), time averaged wall shear stress gradient (TAWSSG), oscillatory shear index (OSI), relative residence time (RRT) and flow separation parameter (FSP). Meanwhile, Pictorial Selection Method was used to evaluate the best hemodynamic stent performance based on a scoring system. From observation, stent Type II was seen to show the highest score for TAWSS, which about 3.44 regardless of any physiological conditions. For TAWSSG, the lowest score was observed for Type V stent with 0.36. Furthermore, Type VI stent displayed the highest score for OSI while Type IV has the lowest score for FSP with 3.09 and 1.23, respectively. On the other hand, RRT was seen varying according to the physiological condition where the highest score in NBP condition was achieved by Type I while PH and HS1 condition was achieved by Type VI. In conclusion, Type VI has the best stent performance, whereas Type IV has the worst stent performance regarding the scoring system based on hemodynamic parameters. Further, Type I, Type II, Type III and Type V stents showed moderate hemodynamic performances for all physiological conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paisal et al. (2019) studied Carotid artery stenosis. Six carotid stent geometries (Type I-VI) vs. Comparison among different stent geometries was evaluated on Hemodynamic performance based on TAWSS, TAWSSG, OSI, RRT, and FSP using a scoring system. In a computational fluid dynamics analysis of six carotid stent geometries, Type VI (resembling Acculink) demonstrated the best overall hemodynamic performance based on a scoring system.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: