Physical Properties of Venous Stents: An Experimental Comparison (original) (raw)

Abstract

Purpose

Iliocaval obstruction is a substantial contributor to chronic venous insufficiency and is increasingly being treated endovascularly with angioplasty and stent placement. Utilization of an appropriate stent for treatment is pivotal; however, until today, mechanical properties of venous stents remain unknown.

Materials and Methods

We analyzed the radial resistive force, the chronic outward force, as well as the crush resistance of seven stent models [Zilver Vena (Cook, Bjaeverskov, Denmark), Sinus Venous, Sinus Obliquus and Sinus XL Flex (Optimed, Ettlingen, Germany), Vici (Veniti; St. Louis, USA), Wallstent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, USA), and Venovo (Bard, Tempe, USA)] in vitro using a radial force testing machine (RX-650, Machine Solutions Inc., Flagstaff, AZ, USA) and a hardness testing machine (zwickiLine, Zwick Roell, Ulm, Germany).

Results

The Sinus Obliquus revealed the highest radial resistive force (19.41 N/cm) and the highest chronic outward force at 50 and 30% nominal diameter (7.93 N/cm at 50%, 16.97 N/cm at 30%) while the Venovo revealed the highest chronic outward force at 90 and 80% nominal diameter (4.83 N/cm at 90%, 5.37 N/cm at 80%). The radial resistive force and the chronic outward force of the Wallstent greatly depended on whether the stent ends were fixated. The Wallstent revealed the highest crush resistance at nominal diameters of 90% (0.46 N/cm) to 60% (1.16 N/cm). The Sinus Obliquus revealed the highest crush resistance at a nominal diameter of 50% (1.41 N/cm).

Conclusion

Venous stents greatly differ regarding their mechanical properties. These results should be considered when choosing an appropriate stent for the treatment of venous obstruction.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oderich GS, Treiman GS, Schneider P, Bhirangi K. Stent placement for treatment of central and peripheral venous obstruction: a long-term multi-institutional experience. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32(4):760–9.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  2. Funaki B, Szymski GX, Leef JA, et al. Treatment of venous outflow stenoses in thigh grafts with Wallstents. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(6):1591–6.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  3. Sista AK, Vedantham S, Kaufman JA, Madoff DC. Endovascular interventions for acute and chronic lower extremity deep venous disease: state of the art. Radiology. 2015;276(1):31–53.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  4. Raju S, Tackett P Jr, Neglen P. Reinterventions for nonocclusive iliofemoral venous stent malfunctions. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49(2):511–8.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  5. Raju S, Owen S Jr, Neglen P. The clinical impact of iliac venous stents in the management of chronic venous insufficiency. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(1):8–15.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  6. Neglen P. Chronic venous obstruction: diagnostic considerations and therapeutic role of percutaneous iliac stenting. Vascular. 2007;15(5):273–80.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Neglen P, Hollis KC, Olivier J, Raju S. Stenting of the venous outflow in chronic venous disease: long-term stent-related outcome, clinical, and hemodynamic result. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46(5):979–90.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Neglen P, Thrasher TL, Raju S. Venous outflow obstruction: an underestimated contributor to chronic venous disease. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38(5):879–85.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Raju S, Neglen P. Laser, “closure”, stents and other new technology in the treatment of venous disease. J Miss State Med Assoc. 2004;45(10):290–7.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  10. Raju S, Neglen P. High prevalence of nonthrombotic iliac vein lesions in chronic venous disease: a permissive role in pathogenicity. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44(1):136–43 (discussion 44).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Maleux G, Vertenten B, Laenen A, et al. Palliative endovascular treatment of cancer-related iliocaval obstructive disease: technical and clinical outcomes. Acta Radiol. 2016;57(4):451–6.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  12. Devcic Z, Techasith T, Banerjee A, Rosenberg JK, Sze DY. Technical and Anatomic Factors Influencing the Success of Inferior Vena Caval Stent Placement for Malignant Obstruction. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(9):1350–60.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  13. Kim DB, Choi H, Joo SM, et al. A comparative reliability and performance study of different stent designs in terms of mechanical properties: foreshortening, recoil, radial force, and flexibility. Artif Organs. 2013;37(4):368–79.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  14. Neglen P, Raju S. Balloon dilation and stenting of chronic iliac vein obstruction: technical aspects and early clinical outcome. J Endovasc Ther. 2000;7(2):79–91.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Lamont JP, Pearl GJ, Patetsios P, et al. Prospective evaluation of endoluminal venous stents in the treatment of the May-Thurner syndrome. Ann Vasc Surg. 2002;16(1):61–4.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  16. Palmaz JC. Intravascular stents: tissue-stent interactions and design considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(3):613–8.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  17. O’Sullivan GJ, Waldron D, Mannion E, Keane M, Donnellan PP. Thrombolysis and iliofemoral vein stent placement in cancer patients with lower extremity swelling attributed to lymphedema. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(1):39–45.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  18. de Wolf MA, de Graaf R, Kurstjens RL, Penninx S, Jalaie H, Wittens CH. short-term clinical experience with a dedicated venous nitinol stent: initial results with the sinus-venous stent. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50(4):518–26.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  19. O’Sullivan GJ, Sheehan J, Lohan D, McCann-Brown JA. Iliofemoral venous stenting extending into the femoral region: initial clinical experience with the purpose-designed Zilver Vena stent. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;54(2):255–61.
    Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank AB Medica, Bard, Boston Scientific, Cook, and Optimed for donating the stents used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany
    Darius Dabir, Andreas Feisst, Daniel Thomas, Julian A. Luetkens, Carsten Meyer, Hans H. Schild & Daniel L. R. Kuetting
  2. Institute of Applied Medical Engineering, Helmholtz Institute of RWTH Aachen University and Hospital, Pauwelsstr. 20, 52074, Aachen, Germany
    Ana Kardulovic, Matthias Menne & Ulrich Steinseifer

Authors

  1. Darius Dabir
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Andreas Feisst
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Daniel Thomas
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Julian A. Luetkens
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. Carsten Meyer
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  6. Ana Kardulovic
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  7. Matthias Menne
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  8. Ulrich Steinseifer
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  9. Hans H. Schild
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  10. Daniel L. R. Kuetting
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toDaniel L. R. Kuetting.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have conflicts of interests.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dabir, D., Feisst, A., Thomas, D. et al. Physical Properties of Venous Stents: An Experimental Comparison.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 41, 942–950 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-1916-1

Download citation

Keywords