Advertisement

NURBS modeling and structural shape optimization of cardiovascular stents

  • Rory Clune
  • Denis Kelliher
  • James C. Robinson
  • John S. Campbell
MEDICAL AND BIOENGINEERING APPLICATIONS

Abstract

Cardiovascular stents have been used since the 1990s to treat atherosclerosis, one of leading causes of death in the western world, and structural optimization has led to significant improvements in stent performance. Much of the potential variation in stent geometry, however, has remained unconsidered. This paper presents a non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS) parameterization of a stent, the inclusion of structural fatigue resistance as a design consideration, and the results of a design optimization based on response surface techniques. Results show the feasibility and merits of the NURBS approach, which models a much broader range of shapes than was previously possible. Multi-objective optimization produces a range of geometrically diverse Pareto-optimal designs; these can be used to develop future clinical design guides, accounting for the variation observed across patients. We conclude by motivating future work with increasingly complex physical modeling and optimization capabilities.

Keywords

Cardiovascular stents Structural shape optimization NURBS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dr. Brendan Cunniffe, formerly of Medtronic Vascular, Galway, Ireland, for his help on this project.

References

  1. Atherton MA, Bates RA (2004) Robust optimization of cardiovascular stents: a comparison of methods. Eng Optim 36(2):207– 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balcon R, Beyar R, Chierchia S, De Scheerder I, Hugenholtz PG, Kiemeneij F, Meier B, Meyer J, Monassier JP et al (1997) Recommendations on stent manufacture, implantation and utilization. Eur Heart J 18:1536–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett MR (2003) In-stent stenosis: pathology and implications for the development of drug eluting stents. Heart 89(2):218– 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duggan TV, Byrne J (1977) Fatigue as a design criterion, vol 77. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Dumoulin C, Cochelin B (2000) Mechanical behaviour modelling of balloon-expandable stents. J Biomech 33(11):1461–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Etave F, Finet G, Boivin M, Boyer JC, Rioufol G, Thollet G (2001) Mechanical properties of coronary stents determined by using finite element analysis. J Biomech 34(8):1065–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harewood F, Thornton R, Ireland M, Sharp P (2011) Step change in design: exploring sixty stent design variations overnight. Altair Product Design WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  9. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J, Franklin J (2005) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference and prediction. Math Intell 27(2):83–85Google Scholar
  10. Kelliher D, Clune R, Campbell JS, Robinson JC, Appelbe B, Buttimer C (2008) Sensitivity of shape change on the performance of stainless steel cardio-vascular stents. In: Proceedings of the 7th ASMO UK conference on engineering design optimization, Bath, pp 274–283Google Scholar
  11. Lally C, Dolan F, Prendergast PJ (2005) Cardiovascular stent design and vessel stresses: a finite element analysis. J Biomech 38(8):1574–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li N, Zhang H, Ouyang H (2009) Shape optimization of coronary artery stent based on a parametric model. Finite Elem Anal Des 45(67):468–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Migliavacca F, Petrini L, Colombo M, Auricchio F, Pietrabissa R (2002) Mechanical behavior of coronary stents investigated through the finite element method. J Biomech 35(6):803–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (1971) Response surface methodology. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Nielsen HB, Lophaven SN, Sondergaard J (2007) DACE: a matlab kriging toolbox. http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/hbni/dace/
  17. Pant S, Bressloff NW, Limbert G (2011a) Geometry parameterization and multidisciplinary constrained optimization of coronary stents. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 11(1–2):61–82Google Scholar
  18. Pant S, Limbert G, Curzen NP, Bressloff NW (2011b) Multiobjective design optimisation of coronary stents. Biomaterials 32(31):7755–7773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Piegl LA, Tiller W (1997) The NURBS book. Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  20. Qian X (2010) Full analytical sensitivities in NURBS based isogeometric shape optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199(29):2059–2071CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Serruys PW (2001) Handbook of coronary stents. Recherche67:02Google Scholar
  22. Seshadri A (2009) NSGA - II: a multi-objective optimization algorithm - MATLAB file exchange., http://www.mathworks.com/ matlabcentral/fileexchange/10429-nsg a-ii-a-multi-objective-opti- mization-algorithmGoogle Scholar
  23. Shen X, Yi H, Ni Z (2008) Effects of stent design parameters on radial force of stent. In: The 2nd international conference on bioinformatics and biomedical engineering. ICBBE 2008, IEEE, pp 1712–1716Google Scholar
  24. Timmins L, Moreno M, Meyer C, Criscione J, Rachev A, Moore J (2007) Stented artery biomechanics and device design optimization. Med Biol Eng Comput 45(5):505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu W, Yang DZ, Huang YY, Qi M, Wang WQ (2008) Topology optimization of a novel stent platform with drug reservoirs. Med Eng Phys 30(9):1177–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xiang S, Hong Y, Zhonghua N, Xingzhong GU (2008) Optimization of coronary stent structure design for maximizing the anti-compression mechanical property. Chin J Mech Eng 21(6)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rory Clune
    • 1
  • Denis Kelliher
    • 2
  • James C. Robinson
    • 3
  • John S. Campbell
    • 3
  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.University College CorkCorkIreland
  3. 3.Kepler Engineering Software Ltd.National SoftwareCentre, MahonCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations