MedElevator
Войти в исследования Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2019
Interference Between Pressure-Wire and Deployed Coronary Stents: Insights from a Bench Test.
СтатьяVideo-Audio MediaНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Warisawa Takayuki, Nour Daniel, Seligman Henry, Doi Shunichi, Kuwata Shingo, Howard James P, Rajkumar Christopher, Cook Christopher M, Nakayama Yui, Kasahara Mizuho, Suzuki Norio, Matsuda Hisao, Mizuno Koichi, Akashi Yoshihiro J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: While several complications related to pressure-wire (PW) have been reported, mechanistic justification has not always been offered. Furthermore, interference between a PW and a protruding side-branch stent has not been previously reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate interference between PW-pullback from a main-branch with a protruded ostial stent deployed in a side-branch.
METHODS: In a polyurethane bifurcation vessel model, PW-pullback was performed in a main-branch following protruded ostial stenting in a side-branch. Tested PWs included PressureWire X, Comet, OptoWire, and Verrata. For each PW, pullback was performed through the same proximal cell of the protruded stent 20 times. Interference during PW-pullback was objectively analyzed with a fiberscope placed at the distal main-branch and classified into 3 grades according to the interaction with stent strut.
RESULTS: There were significant differences in the rate of interference between the PWs. No-interference, interference without strut traction, and interference with strut traction (i.e. stent deformation) were observed as follows: 17/20, 3/20, and 0/20 in PressureWire X; 19/20, 1/20, and 0/20 in Comet; 8/20, 10/20, and 2/20 in OptoWire; and 13/20, 2/20, and 5/20 in Verrata, respectively (p for any differences: <0.001). Visually identifiable major stent deformation was observed once in OptoWire due to the deep concave sensor window and twice in Verrata due to the proximal gap between the sensor and coiled-wire.
CONCLUSIONS: PW-pullback in the main-branch after side-branch ostial stenting should be carefully performed to avoid stent deformation. Consideration on the specific mechanical features of the PW is also essential.
METHODS: In a polyurethane bifurcation vessel model, PW-pullback was performed in a main-branch following protruded ostial stenting in a side-branch. Tested PWs included PressureWire X, Comet, OptoWire, and Verrata. For each PW, pullback was performed through the same proximal cell of the protruded stent 20 times. Interference during PW-pullback was objectively analyzed with a fiberscope placed at the distal main-branch and classified into 3 grades according to the interaction with stent strut.
RESULTS: There were significant differences in the rate of interference between the PWs. No-interference, interference without strut traction, and interference with strut traction (i.e. stent deformation) were observed as follows: 17/20, 3/20, and 0/20 in PressureWire X; 19/20, 1/20, and 0/20 in Comet; 8/20, 10/20, and 2/20 in OptoWire; and 13/20, 2/20, and 5/20 in Verrata, respectively (p for any differences: <0.001). Visually identifiable major stent deformation was observed once in OptoWire due to the deep concave sensor window and twice in Verrata due to the proximal gap between the sensor and coiled-wire.
CONCLUSIONS: PW-pullback in the main-branch after side-branch ostial stenting should be carefully performed to avoid stent deformation. Consideration on the specific mechanical features of the PW is also essential.