Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels

Wouter Jan Geelhoed, Reshma A. Lalai, Joep H. Sinnige, Patrick J. Jongeleen, Cornelis Storm, Joris I. Rotmans (Corresponding author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)


In the evaluation of tissue-engineered blood vessels (TEBVs), the utilization of the correct mechanical test to assess the burst pressure is pivotal for translation to a clinical setting. The ISO 7198 standard outlines various methods that may be implemented to evaluate the mechanical characteristics of vascular prosthetics. The gold standard is the direct measurement of the pressurized burst pressure. Two alternative indirect methods are the circumferential tensile strength (CTS) and the probe burst pressure. There are limited data validating the use of the indirect methods for their predictive capacity of the pressurized burst pressure in single biological vessel samples. We assess the two indirect methods compared with the direct pressurized burst pressure measurement, for their correlation within single biological samples, using methods presently used in literature and as they are proposed by the ISO 7198. The CTS, the probe burst pressure, and the pressurized burst pressure correlated very well (All R2 > 0.89) when silicone samples were assessed, although the indirect methods resulted in a large overestimation of the burst pressure. The correlation between the three mechanical tests was poor (all R2 <0.18) when arterial and venous samples were investigated. Freezing and subsequent thawing before testing had no impact on the mechanical properties of the vessels. Strain rates within the strain rate window provided by the ISO 7198 (50-200 mm/min), likewise, had no impact on the outcome of the tests. Neither the CTS nor the probe burst pressure is predictive of the pressurized burst pressure of the biological vascular tissue. Unless explicitly validated in a testing system on a range of biological tissues, the derived methods should not be utilized for the evaluation of the burst pressure of biological TEBVs for clinical purposes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)472-478
Number of pages7
JournalTissue Engineering. Part C: Methods
Issue number8
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2019


  • mechanical testing
  • tissue engineering
  • vascular biology
  • Tensile Strength
  • Animals
  • Models, Cardiovascular
  • Humans
  • Stress, Mechanical
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis


Dive into the research topics of 'Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this