Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWang, Peijiang
dc.contributor.authorRikhtegar Nezami, Farhad
dc.contributor.authorGorji Bandpay, Maysam
dc.contributor.authorBerti, Francesca
dc.contributor.authorPetrini, Lorenza
dc.contributor.authorWierzbicki, Tomasz
dc.contributor.authorMigliavacca, Francesco
dc.contributor.authorEdelman, Elazer R
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-29T17:47:29Z
dc.date.available2020-06-29T17:47:29Z
dc.date.issued2018-10
dc.date.submitted2018-06
dc.identifier.issn1742-7061
dc.identifier.issn1878-7568
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/126015
dc.description.abstractPolymeric bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), at their early stages of invention, were considered as a promising revolution in interventional cardiology. However, they failed dramatically compared to metal stents showing substantially higher incidence of device failure and clinical events, especially thrombosis. One problem is that use of paradigms inherited from metal stents ignores dependency of polymer material properties on working environment and manufacturing/deployment steps. Unlike metals, polymeric material characterization experiments cannot be considered identical under dry and submerged conditions at varying rates of operation. We demonstrated different material behaviors associated with variable testing environment and parameters. We, then, have employed extracted material models, which are verified by computational methods, to assess the performance of a full-scale BRS in different working condition and under varying procedural strategies. Our results confirm the accepted notion that slower rate of crimping and inflation can potentially reduce stress concentrations and thus reduce localized damages. However, we reveal that using a universal set of material properties derived from a benchtop experiment conducted regardless of working environment and procedural variability may lead to a significant error in estimation of stress-induced damages and overestimation of benefits procedural updates might offer. We conclude that, for polymeric devices, microstructural damages and localized loss of structural integrity should complement former macroscopic performance-assessment measures (fracture and recoil). Though, to precisely capture localized stress concentration and microstructural damages, context-related testing environment and clinically-relevant procedural scenarios should be devised in preliminary experiments of polymeric resorbable devices to enhance their efficacy and avoid unpredicted clinical events. Statement of Significance: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) with the hope to become the next cardiovascular interventional revolution failed in comparison to metal stents. When BRS were characterized using methods for metal stents, designers were misled to seek problem sources at erroneous timeframe and use inefficient indicators, and thus no signal of concern emerged. We demonstrated fundamental flaws associated with applying a universal set of material properties to study device performances in different phases of manufacturing/implantation, and these may be responsible for failure in predicting performance in first-generation BRS. We introduced new criterion for the assessment of structural integrity and device efficacy in next-generation BRS, and indeed all devices using polymeric materials which evolve with the environment they reside in.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institutes of Health (R01 GM 49039)en_US
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BVen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2018.10.020en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_US
dc.sourcePMCen_US
dc.titleEffect of working environment and procedural strategies on mechanical performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffoldsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationWang, Pei-Jiang, et al. "Effect of working environment and procedural strategies on mechanical performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds." Acta Biomaterialia 82 (December 2018): 34–43. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2018.10.020. © 2018 Author(s)en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Biomedical Engineeringen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Medical Engineering and Scienceen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratoryen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineeringen_US
dc.relation.journalActa Biomaterialiaen_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's final manuscripten_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2019-12-10T13:54:41Z
dspace.date.submission2019-12-10T13:54:43Z
mit.journal.volume82en_US
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record