Stent longitudinal flexibility: A comparison of 13 stent designs before and after balloon expansion
Longitudinal flexibility is an important property of coronary stents, facilitating delivery and allowing the expanded stent to conform to vessel contour. Subjective descriptions of flexibility abound, but there are few independent quantitative data to aid stent selection. A three‐point bend test was...
Saved in:
Published in | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions Vol. 50; no. 1; pp. 120 - 124 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article Conference Proceeding |
Language | English |
Published |
New York
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.05.2000
Wiley-Liss |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Longitudinal flexibility is an important property of coronary stents, facilitating delivery and allowing the expanded stent to conform to vessel contour. Subjective descriptions of flexibility abound, but there are few independent quantitative data to aid stent selection. A three‐point bend test was employed to measure stiffness, the reciprocal of flexibility, for 13 stent designs in the unexpanded (bare) state, then after expansion with a 3.5‐mm balloon. For eight of the designs, stiffness of the proprietary stent/balloon delivery system was also measured. In the unexpanded state, there was a wide spread of stiffness, which ranged from 0.5 ± 0.2 to 91.5 ± 10.0 g force/mm, depending on design. Stiffness was least for the coil (Wiktor and Crossflex) and hybrid (AVE GFX and Bard XT) designs. The MultiLink was the most flexible and the Crown the stiffest of the slotted tube designs. All stents became stiffer upon expansion. For most manufacturer‐mounted stents, the delivery balloon was the main determinant of stent/balloon delivery system stiffness. Manufacturer‐mounted stent profile ranged from 1.15 ± 0.11 mm for the Jostent to 1.53 ± 0.05 mm for the MultiLink system. Independent quantitative assessment of characteristics such as flexibility and profile should aid rational comparison of stent designs. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 50:120–124, 2000. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | istex:F4653E6073A8D5AE4DA6C967B184F15BE826665C ark:/67375/WNG-2RFTNHTN-D Green Lane Hospital Research and Educational Fund ArticleID:CCD26 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 1522-1946 1522-726X |
DOI: | 10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(200005)50:1<120::AID-CCD26>3.0.CO;2-T |