Critical parameter of burst pressure measurement in development of bypass grafts is highly dependent on methodology used.
BACKGROUND
Because of the low patency rate of currently available vascular bypass grafts, researchers are working towards the development of alternative bypass grafts, ranging from synthetic prostheses to wholly biologic living grafts. The philosophy of measurement required by regulatory agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as to gain the Conformité Européene (CE) mark is to test above and beyond the limits that would be expected physiologically. The critical parameter of burst pressure is needed for Conformité Européene (CE) mark or United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before clinical trials can proceed. An accurate measurement of burst pressure in potential porous vascular bypass grafts is, therefore, of utmost importance to ensure adequate strength on implantation in animals and subsequent clinical use. A wide range of methods to measure burst pressure have been used. We tested the burst pressure of a new polyurethane-based nanocomposite vascular prosthesis by using different methods to assess whether the method used affected the results.


METHODS
Water was infused at flow rates of 0.2, 50, and 100 mL/min through a syringe pump into latex sleeve-lined porous prostheses manufactured from a poly(carbonate-urea)urethane nanocomposite incorporating silsesquioxane. At the lowest infusion rate, the inflation was done with and without a nonporous inner lining sleeve. A pressure transducer was used to record the peak pressure achieved.


RESULTS
Using a nonporous sleeve resulted in a higher burst pressure (428 mm Hg vs 341 mm Hg) at a flow rate of 0.2 mL/min. A lower infusion rate (0.2 mL/min) produced a lower burst pressure than 50 mL/min (428 mm Hg vs 451 mm Hg). No significant difference was found in burst pressure using infusion rates of 50 mL/min and 100 mL/min.


CONCLUSIONS
The use of a nonporous sleeve removes the potential weakness presented by the pores themselves. A continuous high infusion rate consistently overestimates burst pressure. These methods may not reflect the physiologic state. Care needs to be taken in interpretation of methodology for burst pressure measurement, and the rate of infusion should be stated in any description of the method.


CONCLUSIONS
The poor patency of small-caliber vascular bypass prostheses has stimulated a large body of research into alternative graft materials. This includes synthetic and, more recently, tissue-engineered hybrid products. Acceptance for international standards requires demonstration of a rigorous mechanical testing regimen, including graft strength, which has on the whole involved burst strength measurement. However, the methods used to measure burst strength have varied with respect to apparatus used and rate of graft inflation. We show that these variables lead to markedly different results. In particular, fast infusion rates may overestimate the actual burst pressure, leading to a false sense of security.
Sarkar
Sandip
S
Biomaterials & Tissue Engineering Centre (BTEC), Academic Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hillery
Claire
C
Seifalian
Alexander
A
Hamilton
George
G
D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D001807:Blood Vessel Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008422:Materials Testing; D016062:Porosity; D011312:Pressure; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D013718:Tensile Strength
D001672:Biocompatible Materials