Data differentiating flow diversion properties of commercially available low- and high-porosity stents are limited. This in vitro study applies angiographic analysis of intra-aneurysmal flow to compare the flow-diversion performance of five neurovascular devices in idealized sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm models.
Methods
Five commercial devices (Enterprise, Neuroform, LVIS, FRED, and Pipeline) were implanted in silicone sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm models under physiological average flow of blood analog fluid. High-speed angiographic images were acquired pre- and post-device implantation and contrast concentration-time curves within the aneurysm were recorded. The curves were quantified with five parameters to assess changes in contrast transport, and thus aneurysm hemodynamics, due to each device.
Results
Inter-device flow-diversion performance was more easily distinguished in the sidewall model than the bifurcation model. There were no obvious overall statistical trends in the bifurcation parameters but the Pipeline performed marginally better than the other devices. In the sidewall geometry, overall evidence suggests that the LVIS performed better than the Neuroform and Enterprise. The Pipeline and FRED devices were statistically superior to the three stents and Pipeline was superior to FRED in all sidewall parameters evaluated.
Conclusions
Based on this specific set of experiments, lower-porosity flow diverters perform significantly better in reducing intra-aneurysmal flow activity than higher-porosity stents in sidewall-type geometries. The LVIS device is potentially a better flow diverter than the Neuroform and Enterprise devices, while the Pipeline is potentially better than the FRED.
LylykPMirandaCCerattoRet al.Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device: The Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery2009; 64: 632–642. discussion 642–633; quiz N636.
2.
WakhlooAKTioFOLieberBBet al.Self-expanding nitinol stents in canine vertebral arteries: Hemodynamics and tissue response. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol1995; 16: 1043–1051.
3.
WakhlooAKLanzinoGLieberBBet al.Stents for intracranial aneurysms: The beginning of a new endovascular era?Neurosurgery1998; 43: 377–379.
4.
NelsonPKLylykPSzikoraIet al.The Pipeline embolization device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2011; 32: 34–40.
5.
FiorellaDWooHHAlbuquerqueFCet al.Definitive reconstruction of circumferential, fusiform intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. Neurosurgery2008; 62: 1115–1120. discussion 1120–1121.
6.
FiorellaDKellyMEAlbuquerqueFCet al.Curative reconstruction of a giant midbasilar trunk aneurysm with the Pipeline embolization device. Neurosurgery2009; 64: 212–217; discussion 217.
7.
BecskeTKallmesDFSaatciIet al.Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: Results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology2013; 267: 858–868.
8.
LieberBBSadasivanC. Endoluminal scaffolds for vascular reconstruction and exclusion of aneurysms from the cerebral circulation. Stroke2010; 41(10 Suppl): S21–S25.
9.
LieberBBGounisMJ. The physics of endoluminal stenting in the treatment of cerebrovascular aneurysms. Neurol Res2002; 24(Suppl 1): S33–S42.
10.
DholakiaRSadasivanCFiorellaDJet al.Hemodynamics of flow diverters. J Biomech Eng2017; 139: 021002.
11.
LieberBBStancampianoAPWakhlooAK. Alteration of hemodynamics in aneurysm models by stenting: Influence of stent porosity. Ann Biomed Eng1997; 25: 460–469.
12.
AenisMStancampianoAPWakhlooAKet al.Modeling of flow in a straight stented and nonstented side wall aneurysm model. J Biomech Eng1997; 119: 206–212.
13.
LieberBBLivescuVHopkinsLNet al.Particle image velocimetry assessment of stent design influence on intra-aneurysmal flow. Ann Biomed Eng2002; 30: 768–777.
14.
TragerALSadasivanCSeongJet al.Correlation between angiographic and particle image velocimetry quantifications of flow diverters in an in vitro model of elastase-induced rabbit aneurysms. J Biomech Eng2009; 131: 034506.
15.
TragerALSadasivanCLieberBB. Comparison of the in vitro hemodynamic performance of new flow diverters for bypass of brain aneurysms. J Biomech Eng2012; 134: 084505.
16.
SeongJWakhlooAKLieberBB. In vitro evaluation of flow divertors in an elastase-induced saccular aneurysm model in rabbit. J Biomech Eng2007; 129: 863–872.
17.
SadasivanCLieberBBCesarLet al.Angiographic assessment of the performance of flow divertors to treat cerebral aneurysms. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc2006; 1: 3210–3213.
18.
SadasivanCCesarLSeongJet al.An original flow diversion device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: Evaluation in the rabbit elastase-induced model. Stroke2009; 40: 952–958.
19.
SeshadhriSJanigaGBeuingOet al.Impact of stents and flow diverters on hemodynamics in idealized aneurysm models. J Biomech Eng2011; 133: 071005.
20.
BouillotPBrinaOOuaredRet al.Computational fluid dynamics with stents: Quantitative comparison with particle image velocimetry for three commercial off the shelf intracranial stents. J Neurointerv Surg2016; 8: 309–315.
21.
RoszelleBNGonzalezLFBabikerMHet al.Flow diverter effect on cerebral aneurysm hemodynamics: An in vitro comparison of telescoping stents and the Pipeline. Neuroradiology2013; 55: 751–758.
22.
KojimaMIrieKFukudaTet al.The study of flow diversion effects on aneurysm using multiple Enterprise stents and two flow diverters. Asian J Neurosurg2012; 7: 159–165.
23.
AugsburgerLFarhatMReymondPet al.Effect of flow diverter porosity on intraaneurysmal blood flow. Klin Neuroradiol2009; 19: 204–214.
24.
YuCHKwonTK. Study of parameters for evaluating flow reduction with stents in a sidewall aneurysm phantom model. Biomed Mater Eng2014; 24: 2417–2424.
25.
LeeCJSrinivasKQianY. Three-dimensional hemodynamic design optimization of stents for cerebral aneurysms. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2014; 228: 213–224.
26.
SuzukiTTakaoHFujimuraSet al.Selection of helical braided flow diverter stents based on hemodynamic performance and mechanical properties. J Neurointerv Surg2017; 9: 999–1005.
27.
KulcsárZAugsburgerLReymondPet al.Flow diversion treatment: Intra-aneurismal blood flow velocity and WSS reduction are parameters to predict aneurysm thrombosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien)2012; 154: 1827–1834.
28.
MutFRaschiMScrivanoEet al.Association between hemodynamic conditions and occlusion times after flow diversion in cerebral aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg2015; 7: 286–290.
29.
OuaredRLarrabideIBrinaOet al.Computational fluid dynamics analysis of flow reduction induced by flow-diverting stents in intracranial aneurysms: A patient-unspecific hemodynamics change perspective. J Neurointerv Surg2016; 8: 1288–1293.
30.
ChongWZhangYQianYet al.Computational hemodynamics analysis of intracranial aneurysms treated with flow diverters: Correlation with clinical outcomes. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2014; 35: 136–142.
31.
PereiraVMBonnefousOOuaredRet al.A DSA-based method using contrast-motion estimation for the assessment of the intra-aneurysmal flow changes induced by flow-diverter stents. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2013; 34: 808–815.
32.
GölitzPStruffertTRöschJet al.Cerebral aneurysm treatment using flow-diverting stents: In-vivo visualization of flow alterations by parametric colour coding to predict aneurysmal occlusion: Preliminary results. Eur Radiol2015; 25: 428–435.
33.
PaliwalNDamianoRJDaviesJMet al.Association between hemodynamic modifications and clinical outcome of intracranial aneurysms treated using flow diverters. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng2017, pp. 10135.
34.
MeierPZierlerKL. On the theory of the indicator-dilution method for measurement of blood flow and volume. J Appl Physiol1954; 6: 731–744.
ShpilfoygelSDCloseRAValentinoDJet al.X-ray videodensitometric methods for blood flow and velocity measurement: A critical review of literature. Med Phys2000; 27: 2008–2023.
37.
HilalSK. Determination of the blood flow by a radiographic technique. Physical considerations and experimental results. Am J Roentgenology Radium Ther Nucl Med1966; 96: 896–906.
38.
RosenLSilvermanNR. Videodensitometric measurements of blood flow using crosscorrelation techniques. Radiology1973; 109: 305–310.
KedemDKedemDSmithCWet al.Velocity distribution and blood flow measurements using videodensitometric methods. Invest Radiol1978; 13: 46–56.
41.
SadasivanCCesarLSeongJet al.Treatment of rabbit elastase-induced aneurysm models by flow diverters: Development of quantifiable indexes of device performance using digital subtraction angiography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging2009; 28: 1117–1125.
42.
SadasivanCLieberBBGounisMJet al.Angiographic quantification of contrast medium washout from cerebral aneurysms after stent placement. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2002; 23: 1214–1221.
43.
AsakuraFTenjinHSugawaNet al.Evaluation of intra-aneurysmal blood flow by digital subtraction angiography: Blood flow change after coil embolization. Surg Neurol2003; 59: 310–319. discussion 319.
44.
TenjinHAsakuraFNakaharaYet al.Evaluation of intraaneurysmal blood velocity by time-density curve analysis and digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol1998; 19: 1303–1307.
45.
StruffertTOttSKowarschikMet al.Measurement of quantifiable parameters by time-density curves in the elastase-induced aneurysm model: First results in the comparison of a flow diverter and a conventional aneurysm stent. Eur Radiol2013; 23: 521–527.
46.
YoganandAWoodRPJimenezCet al.Angiographic analysis for phantom simulations of endovascular aneurysm treatments with a new fully retrievable asymmetric flow diverter. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng2015, pp. 9417.
47.
JouLD. In vitro digital subtraction angiographic evaluation of flow diverters in a patient-specific aneurysm. Interv Neuroradiol2017; 23: 260–266.
48.
BaráthKCassotFFaselJHet al.Influence of stent properties on the alteration of cerebral intra-aneurysmal haemodynamics: Flow quantification in elastic sidewall aneurysm models. Neurol Res2005; 27(Suppl 1): S120–S128.
49.
CebralJRMutFChungBJet al.Understanding angiography-based aneurysm flow fields through comparison with computational fluid dynamics. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2017; 38: 1180–1186.
50.
BassingthwaighteJBAckermanFHWoodEH. Applications of the lagged normal density curve as a model for arterial dilution curves. Circ Res1966; 18: 398–415.
51.
BouillotPBrinaOOuaredRet al.Particle imaging velocimetry evaluation of intracranial stents in sidewall aneurysm: Hemodynamic transition related to the stent design. PloS One2014; 9: e113762.
52.
GascouGFerraraRAmbardDet al.The pressure reduction coefficient: A new parameter to assess aneurysmal blood stasis induced by flow diverters/disruptors. Interv Neuroradiol2017; 23: 41–46.
53.
SeongJSadasivanCOnizukaMet al.Morphology of elastase-induced cerebral aneurysm model in rabbit and rapid prototyping of elastomeric transparent replicas. Biorheology2005; 42: 345–361.
54.
LieberBBSadasivanCHaoQet al.The mixability of angiographic contrast with arterial blood. Med Phys2009; 36: 5064–5078.
55.
DarsautTEBingFSalazkinIet al.Flow diverters failing to occlude experimental bifurcation or curved sidewall aneurysms: An in vivo study in canines. J Neurosurg2012; 117: 37–44.
56.
WangCTianZLiuJet al.Flow diverter effect of LVIS stent on cerebral aneurysm hemodynamics: A comparison with Enterprise stents and the Pipeline device. J Transl Med2016; 14: 199.
57.
ShapiroMRazEBecskeTet al.Variable porosity of the Pipeline embolization device in straight and curved vessels: A guide for optimal deployment strategy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2014; 35: 727–733.
