Why the study?
Does reducing the number of circumferentially repeating crowns in coronary stents improve the hemodynamic environment (wall shear stress) in stented arteries?
Does reducing the number of circumferentially repeating crowns in coronary stents improve the hemodynamic environment (wall shear stress) in stented arteries?
Reducing the number of circumferentially repeating crowns in current coronary stents may improve the hemodynamic environment and reduce the likelihood of excessive neointimal growth and thrombus formation.
Reducing crown number may improve stent hemodynamics; leaves open whether this warrants redesign in clinical use.
Coronary stent design influences local patterns of wall shear stress (WSS) that are associated with neointimal growth, restenosis, and the endothelialization of stent struts. The number of circumferentially repeating crowns N(C) for a given stent design is often modified depending on the target vessel caliber, but the hemodynamic implications of altering N(C) have not previously been studied. In this investigation, we analyzed the relationship between vessel diameter and the hemodynamically optimal N(C) using a derivative-free optimization algorithm coupled with computational fluid dynamics. The algorithm computed the optimal vessel diameter, defined as minimizing the area of stent-induced low WSS, for various configurations (i.e., N(C)) of a generic slotted-tube design and designs that resemble commercially available stents. Stents were modeled in idealized coronary arteries with a vessel diameter that was allowed to vary between 2 and 5 mm. The results indicate that the optimal vessel diameter increases for stent configurations with greater N(C), and the designs of current commercial stents incorporate a greater N(C) than hemodynamically optimal stent designs. This finding suggests that reducing the N(C) of current stents may improve the hemodynamic environment within stented arteries and reduce the likelihood of excessive neointimal growth and thrombus formation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gundert et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: