Skip to main content
Download PDF

A Computational Study of the Effect of Stent Design on Local Hemodynamic Factors at the Carotid Artery Bifurcation

Artery Research volume 26, pages 161–169 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Previous clinical studies have shown that the incidence of restenosis after carotid and coronary stenting varies with stent design and deployment configuration. This study aims to determine how stent design may affect in-stent hemodynamics in stented carotid arteries by means of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD).

Methods

A robust computational method was developed to integrate detailed stent strut geometry in a patient-specific carotid artery reconstructed from medical images. Three stent designs, including two closed-cell stents and one open-cell stent, were reproduced and incorporated into the reconstructed post-stent carotid bifurcation. CFD simulations were performed under patient-specific flow conditions. Local hemodynamic parameters were evaluated and compared in terms of Wall Shear Stress (WSS), Oscillatory Shear Index (OSI) and Relative Residence Time (RRT).

Results

All simulated stent designs induced some degree of flow disruption as manifested through flow separation and recirculation zones downstream of stent struts and quantified by WSS-related indices. Compared to the simulated open-cell stent, closed-cell stents created slightly larger areas of low WSS, elevated OSI and high RRT, due to a greater number of stent struts protruding into the lumen.

Conclusion

Detailed stent design and patient-specific geometric features of the stented vessel have a strong influence on the evaluated hemodynamic parameters. Our limited computational results suggest that closed-cell stents may pose a higher risk for in-stent restenosis (ISR) than open-cell stent design. Further large-scale prospective studies are warranted to elucidate the role of stent design in the development of ISR after CAS.

Highlights

  • This study provides a detailed analysis of in-stent hemodynamics in post-stenting carotid arteries under patient-specific anatomical and flow conditions.

  • Three different carotid stents are modelled and virtually implanted into a carotid artery bifurcation reconstructed from computed tomography images.

  • Results from this study offer more insights into the differences in hemodynamic measures between open- and closed-cell stents, which are essential for evaluating the risk of in-stent restenosis.

  • The computational method used in this study offers a useful tool for future improvement and optimisation of carotid stent designs.

References

  1. Wayangankar S, Kapadia S, Bajzer C. Carotid artery stenting: 2016 and beyond. Cardiovasc Innov Appl 2016;1:311–24.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brott TG, Howard G, Roubin GS, Meschia JF, Mackey A, Brooks W, et al. Long-term results of stenting versus endarterectomy for carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1021–31.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brott TG, Halperin JL, Abbara S, Bacharach JM, Barr JD, Bush RL, et al. 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS guideline on the management of patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral artery disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Stroke Association, American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Society for Vascular Medicine, and Society for Vascular Surgery. Circulation 2011;124:e54–130.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, et al. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1493–501.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Naylor AR, Ricco JB, de Borst GJ, Debus S, de Haro J, Halliday A, et al. Editor’s choice - management of atherosclerotic carotid and vertebral artery disease: 2017 clinical practice guidelines of the european society for vascular surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2018;55:3–81.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Venermo M, Wang G, Sedrakyan A, Mao J, Eldrup N, DeMartino R, et al. Editor’s choice - carotid stenosis treatment: variation in international practice patterns. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2017;53:511–19.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Liapis CD, Bell PRF, Mikhailidis D, Sivenius J, Nicolaides A, Fernandes e Fernandes J, et al. ESVS guidelines. invasive treatment for carotid stenosis: indications, techniques. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009;37:S1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nallamothu BK, Gurm HS, Ting HH, Goodney PP, Rogers MAM, Curtis JP, et al. Operator experience and carotid stenting outcomes in medicare beneficiaries. JAMA 2011;306:1338–43.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brott TG, Hobson RW, Howard G, Roubin GS, Clark WM, Brooks W, et al. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2010;363:11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sandercock P. Carotid stenosis—surgery or stenting to prevent stroke? Nat Rev Neurol 2010;6:647–8.

  11. Ederle J, Featherstone RL, Brown MM. Randomized controlled trials comparing endarterectomy and endovascular treatment for carotid artery stenosis: a Cochrane systematic review. Stroke 2009;40:1373–80.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sardar P, Chatterjee S, Aronow HD, Kundu A, Ramchand P, Mukherjee D, et al. Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for stroke prevention: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2266–75.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lal BK, Beach KW, Roubin GS, Lutsep HL, Moore WS, Malas MB, et al. Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2012;11:755–63.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zapata-Arriaza E, Moniche F, González A, Bustamante A, Escudero-Martínez I, De la Torre Laviana FJ, et al. Predictors of restenosis following carotid angioplasty and stenting. Stroke 2016;47:2144–7.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Arquizan C, Trinquart L, Touboul PJ, Long A, Feasson S, Terriat B, et al. Restenosis is more frequent after carotid stenting than after endarterectomy: the EVA-3S study. Stroke 2011;42:1015–20.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Ederle J, van der Worp HB, de Borst GJ, et al. Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial. Lancet 2015;385:529–38.

    Google Scholar 

  17. de Donato G, Setacci C, Deloose K, Peeters P, Cremonesi A, Bosiers M. Long-term results of carotid artery stenting. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:1431–41.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Alparslan B, Nas OF, Eritmen UT, Duran S, Ozkaya G, Hakyemez B. The effect of stent cell geometry on carotid stenting outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016;39:507–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Texakalidis P, Giannopoulos S, Kokkinidis DG, Lanzino G. Effect of open- vs closed-cell stent design on periprocedural outcomes and restenosis after carotid artery stenting: a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther 2018;25:523–33.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Timaran CH, Rosero EB, Higuera A, Ilarraza A, Modrall JG, Clagett GP. Randomized clinical trial of open-cell vs closed-cell stents for carotid stenting and effects of stent design on cerebral embolization. J Vasc Surg 2011;54:1310–16.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hussain HG, Aparajita R, Khan SZ, Rezayat C, McKinsey JF, Dayal R. Closed-cell stents present with higher velocities on duplex ultrasound compared with open-cell stents after carotid intervention: short- and mid-term results. Ann Vasc Surg 2011;25:55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jansen O, Fiehler J, Hartmann M, Brückmann H. Protection or nonprotection in carotid stent angioplasty: the influence of interventional techniques on outcome data from the SPACE trial. Stroke 2009;40:841–6.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pierce DS, Rosero EB, Modrall JG, Adams-Huet B, Valentine RJ, Clagett GP, et al. Open-cell versus closed-cell stent design differences in blood flow velocities after carotid stenting. J Vasc Surg 2009;49:602–6.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lal BK, Kaperonis EA, Cuadra S, Kapadia I, Hobson RW. Patterns of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting: classification and implications for long-term outcome. J Vasc Surg 2007;46:833–40.

    Google Scholar 

  25. De Santis G, Trachet B, Conti M, De Beule M, Morbiducci U, Mortier P, et al. A computational study of the hemodynamic impact of open- versus closed-cell stent design in carotid artery stenting. Artif Organs 2013;37:E96–106.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Uemiya N, Lee CJ, Ishihara S, Yamane F, Zhang Y, Qian Y. Analysis of restenosis after carotid artery stenting: preliminary results using computational fluid dynamics based on three-dimensional angiography. J Clin Neurosci 2013;20:1582–7.

    Google Scholar 

  27. LaDisa JF, Olson LE, Guler I, Hettrick DA, Audi SH, Kersten JR, et al. Stent design properties and deployment ratio influence indexes of wall shear stress: a three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics investigation within a normal artery. J Appl Physiol 2004;97:424–30; discussion 416.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kabinejadian F, Cui F, Su B, Danpinid A, Ho P, Leo HL. Effects of a carotid covered stent with a novel membrane design on the blood flow regime and hemodynamic parameters distribution at the carotid artery bifurcation. Med Biol Eng Comput 2015;53:165–77.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gundert TJ, Marsden AL, Yang W, LaDisa JF. Optimization of cardiovascular stent design using computational fluid dynamics. J Biomech Eng 2012;134:011002.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kataoka ML, Hochman MG, Rodriguez EK, Lin PJP, Kubo S, Raptopolous VD. A review of factors that affect artifact from metallic hardware on multi-row detector computed tomography. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2010;39:125–36.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Li ZY, Tan FPP, Soloperto G, Wood NB, Xu XY, Gillard JH, et al. Flow pattern analysis in a highly stenotic patient- specific carotid bifurcation model using a turbulence model. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2015;18:1099–107.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tan FPP, Soloperto G, Bashford S, Wood NB, Thom S, Hughes A, et al. Analysis of flow disturbance in a stenosed carotid artery bifurcation using two-equation transitional and turbulence models. J Biomech Eng 2008;130:061008.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Quemada D. Rheology of concentrated disperse systems II. A model for non-newtonian shear viscosity in steady flows. Rheol Acta 1978;17:632–42.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Marcinkowska-Gapińska A, Gapinski J, Elikowski W, Jaroszyk F, Kubisz L. Comparison of three rheological models of shear flow behavior studied on blood samples from post-infarction patients. Med Biol Eng Comput 2007;45:837–44.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Groen HC, Simons L, van den Bouwhuijsen QJA, Bosboom EMH, Gijsen FJH, van der Giessen AG, et al. MRI-based quantification of outflow boundary conditions for computational fluid dynamics of stenosed human carotid arteries. J Biomech 2010;43:2332–8.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Malek AM, Alper SL, Izumo S. Hemodynamic shear stress and its role in atherosclerosis. JAMA 1999;282:2035–42.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Welt FGP, Rogers C. Inflammation and restenosis in the stent era. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2002;22:1769–76.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ng J, Bourantas CV, Torii R, Ang HY, Tenekecioglu E, Serruys PW, et al. Local hemodynamic forces after stenting: implications on restenosis and thrombosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2017;37:2231–42.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Peiffer V, Sherwin SJ, Weinberg PD. Does low and oscillatory wall shear stress correlate spatially with early atherosclerosis? a systematic review. Cardiovasc Res 2013;99:242–50.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wodarg F, Turner EL, Dobson J, Ringleb PA, Mali WA, Fraedrich G, et al. Influence of stent design and use of protection devices on outcome of carotid artery stenting: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:1149–54.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Maleux G, Marrannes J, Heye S, Daenens K, Verhamme P, Thijs V. Outcome of carotid artery stenting at 2 years follow-up: comparison of nitinol open cell versus stainless steel closed cell stent design. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2009;50:669–75.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Auricchio F, Conti M, De Beule M, De Santis G, Verhegghe B. Carotid artery stenting simulation: from patient-specific images to finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 2011;33:281–9.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Vitek JJ, Roubin GS, Al-Mubarek N, New G, Iyer SS. Carotid artery stenting: technical considerations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1736–43.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Slager CJ, Wentzel JJ, Gijsen FJH, Thury A, van der Wal AC, Schaar JA, et al. The role of shear stress in the destabilization of vulnerable plaques and related therapeutic implications. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2005;2:456–64.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gundert TJ, Shadden SC, Williams AR, Koo BK, Feinstein JA, Ladisa JF. A rapid and computationally inexpensive method to virtually implant current and next-generation stents into subject-specific computational fluid dynamics models. Ann Biomed Eng 2011;39:1423–37.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chiastra C, Migliavacca F, Martínez MA, Malvè M. On the necessity of modelling fluid-structure interaction for stented coronary arteries. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014;34:217–30.

    Google Scholar 

  47. De Wilde D, Trachet B, De Meyer G, Segers P. The influence of anesthesia and fluid-structure interaction on simulated shear stress patterns in the carotid bifurcation of mice. J Biomech 2016;49:2741–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Nasrul Hadi Johari & Xiao Yun Xu

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia

    Nasrul Hadi Johari

  3. Department of Interventional Radiology, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

    Mohamad Hamady

  4. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Mohamad Hamady

Authors
  1. Nasrul Hadi Johari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamad Hamady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiao Yun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao Yun Xu.

Additional information

Peer review under responsibility of the Association for Research into Arterial Structure and Physiology

Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, X.Y.X., upon reasonable request.

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johari, N.H., Hamady, M. & Xu, X.Y. A Computational Study of the Effect of Stent Design on Local Hemodynamic Factors at the Carotid Artery Bifurcation. Artery Res 26, 161–169 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2991/artres.k.200603.001

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/artres.k.200603.001

Keywords

Artery Research

ISSN: 1876-4401

Contact us