A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Interference Between Pressure-Wire and Deployed Coronary Stents: Insights from a Bench Test. | LitMetric

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2019.10.026DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

interference pw-pullback
8
main-branch protruded
8
protruded ostial
8
interference strut
8
strut traction
8
interference
7
stent
5
interference pressure-wire
4
pressure-wire deployed
4
deployed coronary
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!