title: Effect of flow diverter porosity on intraaneurysmal blood flow.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Growth and rupture, the two events that dominate the evolution of an intracranial aneurysm, are both dependent on intraaneurysmal flow. Decrease of intraaneurysmal flow is considered an attractive alternative for treating intracranial aneurysms by minimally invasive techniques. Such modification can be achieved by inserting stents or flow diverters alone. In the present paper, the effect of different commercial and innovative flow diverters' porosity was studied in intracranial aneurysm models.
  
  
  METHODS
  Single and stent-in-stent combination of Neuroform II as well as single and stent-in-stent combination of a new innovative, low-porosity, intracranial stent device (D1, D2, D1 + D2) were inserted in models of intracranial aneurysms under shear-driven flow and inertia-driven flow configurations. Steady and pulsating flow rates were applied using a blood-like fluid. Particle image velocimetry was used to measure velocity vector fields in the aneurysm midplane along the vessel axis. Flow and vorticity patterns, velocity and vorticity magnitudes were quantified and their value compared with the same flows in absence of the flow diverter.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In absence of flow diverters, a solid-like rotation could be observed in both shear-driven and inertia-driven models under steady and pulsatile flow conditions. The flow effects due to the insertion of low-porous devices such as D1 or D2 provoked a complete alteration of the flow patterns and massive reduction of velocity or vorticity magnitudes, whereas the introduction of clinically adopted high-porous devices provoked less effect in the aneurysm cavity. As expected, results showed that the lower the porosity the larger the reduction in velocity and vorticity within the aneurysm cavity. The lowest-porosity device combination (D1 and D2) reached an averaged reduction of flow parameters of 80% and 88% under steady and pulsatile flow conditions, respectively. The reduction in mean velocity and vorticity was much more significant in the shear-driven flows as compared to the inertia-driven flows.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although device porosity is the main parameter influencing flow reduction, other parameters such as device design and local flow conditions may influence the level of flow reduction within intracranial aneurysms.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Hemodynamics and Cardiovascular Technology, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. luca.augsburger@epfl.ch
authors.forename: Luca
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Augsburger
authors.forename: Mohamed
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Farhat
authors.forename: Philippe
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Reymond
authors.forename: Edouard
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Fonck
authors.forename: Zsolt
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Kulcsar
authors.forename: Nikos
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Stergiopulos
authors.forename: Daniel A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Rüfenacht
mesh_terms: D001783:Blood Flow Velocity; D001807:Blood Vessel Prosthesis; D003198:Computer Simulation; D017076:Computer-Aided Design; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D006801:Humans; D002532:Intracranial Aneurysm / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery*; D008955:Models, Cardiovascular; D016062:Porosity; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D015607:Stents
references.citation: Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1992;115(3-4):112-7
references.pmid: 1605078
references.citation: Ann Biomed Eng. 1997 May-Jun;25(3):460-9
references.pmid: 9146801
references.citation: Neurol Res. 2005;27 Suppl 1:S120-8
references.pmid: 16197837
references.citation: Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1993;122(3-4):244-9
references.pmid: 8372716
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD003085
references.pmid: 16235314
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001 Nov-Dec;22(10):1844-8
references.pmid: 11733313
references.citation: Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2002 Jul;11(4):173-8
references.pmid: 16754067
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Oct;27(9):1861-5
references.pmid: 17032857
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004 Nov-Dec;25(10):1750-9
references.pmid: 15569741
references.citation: Neuroradiology. 2007 Dec;49(12):1023-8
references.pmid: 17703295
references.citation: Stroke. 2007 Aug;38(8):2346-52
references.pmid: 17615366
references.citation: Neurol Res. 2008 Apr;30(3):251-5
references.pmid: 17803843
references.citation: Ann Biomed Eng. 2002 Jul-Aug;30(7):894-904
references.pmid: 12398420
references.citation: Neurosurgery. 2005 Jul;57(1 Suppl):E208; discussion E208
references.pmid: 15987592
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003 Feb;24(2):263-6
references.pmid: 12591645
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Jul 12;362(9378):103-10
references.pmid: 12867109
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Aug;27(7):1514-20
references.pmid: 16908571
references.citation: Ann Biomed Eng. 2002 Jun;30(6):768-77
references.pmid: 12220077
references.citation: Med Eng Phys. 1999 Apr;21(3):133-41
references.pmid: 10468355
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 2005 Jul;103(1):146-55
references.pmid: 16121985
references.citation: Stroke. 2004 Nov;35(11):2500-5
references.pmid: 15514200
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 2005 Nov;103(5):891-902
references.pmid: 16304994