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)

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

Uittreksel

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.

TaalEngels
Pagina's472-478
Aantal pagina's7
TijdschriftTissue Engineering. Part C: Methods
Volume25
Nummer van het tijdschrift8
DOI's
StatusGepubliceerd - 1 aug 2019

Vingerafdruk

Pressure measurement
Pressure
Blood Vessels
Tensile Strength
Tissue
Tensile strength
Blood vessels
Strain rate
Thawing
Testing
Silicones
Prosthetics
Freezing
Mechanical properties

Trefwoorden

    Citeer dit

    Geelhoed, W. J., Lalai, R. A., Sinnige, J. H., Jongeleen, P. J., Storm, C., & Rotmans, J. I. (2019). Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels. Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods, 25(8), 472-478. DOI: 10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0133
    Geelhoed, Wouter Jan ; Lalai, Reshma A. ; Sinnige, Joep H. ; Jongeleen, Patrick J. ; Storm, Cornelis ; Rotmans, Joris I./ Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels. In: Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods. 2019 ; Vol. 25, Nr. 8. blz. 472-478
    @article{0c1c63b5243a4616a1baafe52c8c41ef,
    title = "Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels",
    abstract = "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.",
    keywords = "mechanical testing, tissue engineering, vascular biology",
    author = "Geelhoed, {Wouter Jan} and Lalai, {Reshma A.} and Sinnige, {Joep H.} and Jongeleen, {Patrick J.} and Cornelis Storm and Rotmans, {Joris I.}",
    year = "2019",
    month = "8",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0133",
    language = "English",
    volume = "25",
    pages = "472--478",
    journal = "Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods",
    issn = "1937-3384",
    publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
    number = "8",

    }

    Geelhoed, WJ, Lalai, RA, Sinnige, JH, Jongeleen, PJ, Storm, C & Rotmans, JI 2019, 'Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels' Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods, vol. 25, nr. 8, blz. 472-478. DOI: 10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0133

    Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels. / Geelhoed, Wouter Jan; Lalai, Reshma A.; Sinnige, Joep H.; Jongeleen, Patrick J.; Storm, Cornelis; Rotmans, Joris I. (Corresponding author).

    In: Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods, Vol. 25, Nr. 8, 01.08.2019, blz. 472-478.

    Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels

    AU - Geelhoed,Wouter Jan

    AU - Lalai,Reshma A.

    AU - Sinnige,Joep H.

    AU - Jongeleen,Patrick J.

    AU - Storm,Cornelis

    AU - Rotmans,Joris I.

    PY - 2019/8/1

    Y1 - 2019/8/1

    N2 - 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.

    AB - 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.

    KW - mechanical testing

    KW - tissue engineering

    KW - vascular biology

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070440283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0133

    DO - 10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0133

    M3 - Article

    VL - 25

    SP - 472

    EP - 478

    JO - Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods

    T2 - Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods

    JF - Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods

    SN - 1937-3384

    IS - 8

    ER -

    Geelhoed WJ, Lalai RA, Sinnige JH, Jongeleen PJ, Storm C, Rotmans JI. Indirect burst pressure measurements for the mechanical assessment of biological vessels. Tissue Engineering. Part C: Methods. 2019 aug 1;25(8):472-478. Beschikbaar vanaf, DOI: 10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0133