Key result
In vitro model quantifies differences in trackability, crossability, and pushability among coronary stent systems.
Why the study?
Trackability, crossability, and pushability are essential for stent system deliverability, but objective quantitative assessment methods were lacking.
An objective in vitro model can quantitatively assess and differentiate the trackability, crossability, and pushability of various coronary stent systems.
In vitro models enable standardized stent deliverability testing; leaves open clinical correlation and prospective validation before practice impact.
Trackability, crossability and pushability are essential properties determining the handling characteristics and deliverability of stent systems. We present objective test methods to assess these parameters quantitatively in an in vitro model. The model consisted of a 6F guiding catheter, a guide wire (0.014") and a coronary vessel model (HD-PE tubing, I.D. 2.5 mm), all immersed in 37 degrees C water. Two attached sensors measured the reactive forces occurring at the proximal catheter shaft and the distal catheter and stent segments during model passage. For crossability assessment, the setup was completed by a stenosis model, mimicking two types of eccentric circular stenoses. A comparative study provided distinctive differences in trackability, stenosis crossability, and pushability. Analyzing the proximal and distal force measurements, these differences were quantified and the qualification of a particular stent system to be successfully delivered to a model target stenosis could be rated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schmidt et al. (2002) studied Coronary stent systems (in vitro). Coronary stent systems was evaluated on Trackability, crossability, and pushability (proximal and distal force measurements). An in vitro model successfully quantified distinctive differences in trackability, stenosis crossability, and pushability among coronary stent systems using proximal and distal force measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: