Geometry parameterization and multidisciplinary constrained optimization of coronary stents

  • Sanjay Pant
  • Neil W. BressloffEmail author
  • Georges Limbert
Original Paper


Coronary stents are tubular type scaffolds that are deployed, using an inflatable balloon on a catheter, most commonly to recover the lumen size of narrowed (diseased) arterial segments. A common differentiating factor between the numerous stents used in clinical practice today is their geometric design. An ideal stent should have high radial strength to provide good arterial support post-expansion, have high flexibility for easy manoeuvrability during deployment, cause minimal injury to the artery when being expanded and, for drug eluting stents, should provide adequate drug in the arterial tissue. Often, with any stent design, these objectives are in competition such that improvement in one objective is a result of trade-off in others. This study proposes a technique to parameterize stent geometry, by varying the shape of circumferential rings and the links, and assess performance by modelling the processes of balloon expansion and drug diffusion. Finite element analysis is used to expand each stent (through balloon inflation) into contact with a representative diseased coronary artery model, followed by a drug release simulation. Also, a separate model is constructed to measure stent flexibility. Since the computational simulation time for each design is very high (approximately 24 h), a Gaussian process modelling approach is used to analyse the design space corresponding to the proposed parameterization. Four objectives to assess recoil, stress distribution, drug distribution and flexibility are set up to perform optimization studies. In particular, single objective constrained optimization problems are set up to improve the design relative to the baseline geometry—i.e. to improve one objective without compromising the others. Improvements of 8, 6 and 15% are obtained individually for stress, drug and flexibility metrics, respectively. The relative influence of the design features on each objective is quantified in terms of main effects, thereby suggesting the design features which could be altered to improve stent performance. In particular, it is shown that large values of strut width combined with smaller axial lengths of circumferential rings are optimal in terms of minimizing average stresses and maximizing drug delivery. Furthermore, it is shown that a larger amplitude of the links with minimum curved regions is desirable for improved flexibility, average stresses and drug delivery.


Coronary stents Optimization Finite element analysis Flexibility Drug distribution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atherton M, Bates R (2006) Searching for improvement. In: Bryant JA, Atherton MA, Collins MW (eds) Information transfer in biological systems, design in nature series, vol 2. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 345–379. ISBN 1853128538Google Scholar
  2. Bedoya J, Meyer C, Timmins L, Moreno M, Moore J Jr (2006) Effects of stent design parameters on normal artery wall mechanics. J Biomech Eng 128: 757–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blouza A, Dumas L, M’Baye I (2008) Multiobjective optimization of a stent in a fluid-structure context. In: Proceedings of the 2008 GECCO conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 2055–2060Google Scholar
  4. Carter AJ, Laird JR, Farb A, Kufs W, Wortham DC, Virmani R (1994) Morphologic characteristics of lesion formation and time course of smooth muscle cell proliferation in a porcine proliferative restenosis model. J Am Coll Cardiol 24: 1398–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Contiliano J, Zhang Q (2009) Method of manufacturing a polymeric stent having a circumferential ring configuration. WO Patent WO/2009/121048Google Scholar
  6. Cordis Corporation (2010) Insrtuctions for use: CYPHER sirolimus-eluting coronary stent on RAPTOR over-the-wire delivery system. Johnson & Johnson company, Warren/Bridgewater Campus, 12th edn, , last accessed 20th May, 2010, 1913 hrs
  7. Crank J (1979) The mathematics of diffusion. Oxford University Press, USAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Dassault Syst́emes (2009) Abaqus 6.9.1 user manual. Dassault Systèmes Simulia CorpGoogle Scholar
  9. De Beule M (2008) Finite element stent design. PhD thesis, University of GentGoogle Scholar
  10. De Beule M, Van Impe R, Verhegghe B, Segers P, Verdonck P (2006) Finite element analysis and stent design: reduction of dogboning. Technol Health Care 14(4): 233–241Google Scholar
  11. De Beule M, Mortier P, Carlier S, Verhegghe B, Van Impe R, Verdonck P (2008) Realistic finite element-based stent design: the impact of balloon folding. J Biomech 41(2): 383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engineers Hand Book (2010); last accessed 02 May, 2010
  13. Farb A, Sangiorgi G, Carter AJ, Walley VM, Edwards WD, Schwartz RS, Virmani R (1999) Pathology of acute and chronic coronary stenting in humans. Circulation 99: 44–52Google Scholar
  14. Feenstra P, Taylor C (2009) Drug transport in artery walls: a sequential porohyperelastic-transport approach. Comput Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 12(3): 263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forrester AIJ, Sóbester A, Keane AJ (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. Wiley, Chichester, p 240. ISBN 978-0-470-06068-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gervaso F, Capelli C, Petrini L, Lattanzio S, Di Virgilio L, Migliavacca F (2008) On the effects of different strategies in modelling balloon-expandable stenting by means of finite element method. J Biomech 41(6): 1206–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hara H, Nakamura M, Schwartz R (2006) Role of stent design and coatings on restenosis and thrombosis. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58: 377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hicks R, Henne P (1978) Wing design by numerical optimization. J Aircr 15(7): 407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Mehran R, Kent KM, Pichard AD, Satler LF, Leon MB (1999) Tissue proliferation within and surrounding palmaz-schatz stents is dependent on the aggressiveness of stent implanation technique. Am J Cardiol 83: 1170–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holzapfel G, Sommer G, Regitnig P (2004) Anisotropic mechanical properties of tissue components in human atherosclerotic plaques. J Biomech Eng 126(5): 657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holzapfel G, Sommer G, Gasser C, Regitnig P (2005a) Determination of layer-specific mechanical properties of human coronary arteries with nonatherosclerotic intimal thickening and related constitutive modeling. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 289(5): H2048– H2058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holzapfel GA, Stadler M, Gasser T (2005) Changes in the mechanical environment of stenotic arteries during interaction with stents: computational assessment of parametric stent designs. J Biomech Eng 127: 166–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hose D, Narracott A, Griffiths B, Mahmood S, Gunn J, Sweeney D, Lawford P (2004) A thermal analogy for modelling drug elution from cardiovascular stents. Comput Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 7(5): 257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones D, Schonlau M, Welch W (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Global Optim 13(4): 455– 492CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Jua F, Xiaa Z, Zhoub C (2008) Repeated unit cell (RUC) approach for pure bending analysis of coronary stents. Comput Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 11(4): 419–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, Dotzer F, Schuhlen H, Neumann F, Fleckenstein M, Pfafferott C, Seyfarth M, Schomig A (2001) Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (isar-stereo) trial. Circulation 103: 2816–2821Google Scholar
  27. Keane A, Nair P (2005) Computational approaches for aerospace design. The pursuit of excellence. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiousis D, Gasser T, Holzapfel G (2007) A numerical model to study the interaction of vascular stents with human atherosclerotic lesions. Ann Biomed Eng 35(11): 1857–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knig A, Schiele TM, Rieber J, Theisen K, Mudra H, Klauss V (2002) Influence of stent design and deployment technique on neointima formation and vascular remodeling. Z Kardiol 91: 98–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kock S, Nygaard J, Eldrup N, Frund E, Klærke A, Paaske W, Falk E, Yong Kim W (2008) Mechanical stresses in carotid plaques using MRI-based fluid–structure interaction models. J Biomech 41(8): 1651–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolachalama V, Bressloff N, Nair P (2007a) Mining data from hemodynamic simulations via Bayesian emulation. Biomed Eng Online 6(1): 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolachalama V, Bressloff N, Nair P, Shearman C (2007b) Predictive haemodynamics in a one-dimensional human carotid artery bifurcation. Part I: application to stent design. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54(5): 802–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolachalama V, Tzafriri A, Arifin D, Edelman E (2009) Luminal flow patterns dictate arterial drug deposition in stent-based delivery. J Controlled Release 133(1): 24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornowski R, Hong MK, Tio FO, Bramwell O, Wu H, Leon MB (1998) In-stent restenosis: contributions of inflammatory responses and arterial injury to neointimal hyperplasia. J Am Coll Cardiol 31: 224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ku D (1997) Blood flow in arteries. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 29: 399–434CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Ku D, Zarins C, Giddens D, Glagov S (1985) Pulsatile flow and atherosclerosis in the human carotid bifurcation: positve correlation between plaque localization and low and oscillating shear stress. Arteriosclerosis 5: 292–302Google Scholar
  37. Li N, Gu Y (2005) Parametric design analysis and shape optimization of coronary arteries stent structure. In: Proceedings of 6th world congresses of structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Rio de Janeiro, 30 May–03 June, 2005, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  38. Li N, Zhanga H, Ouyang H (2009) Shape optimization of coronary artery stent based on a parametric model. Finite Elem Anal Des 45: 468–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGarry J, O’Donnell B, McHugh P, McGarry J (2004) Analysis of the mechanical performance of a cardiovascular stent design based on micromechanical modelling. Comput Mater Sci 31(3–4): 421–438Google Scholar
  40. Moore J Jr, Xu C, Glagov S, Zarins C, Ku D (1994) Fluid wall shear stress measurements in a model of the human abdominal aorta: oscillatory behavior and relationship to atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis 110(2): 225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mori K, Saito T (2005) Effects of stent structure on stent flexibility measurements. Ann Biomed Eng 33(6): 733–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morton AC, Crossman D, Gunn J (2004) The influence of physical stent parameters upon restenosis. Pathol Biol 52: 196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murphy B, Savage P, McHugh P, Quinn D (2003) The stress–strain behavior of coronary stent struts is size dependent. Ann Biomed Eng 31(6): 686–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pache J, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Schuhlen H, Dotzer F, Hausleiter J, Fleckenstein M, Neumann F, Sattelberger U, Schmitt C, Muller M, Dirschinger J, Schomig A (2003) Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (isar-stereo-2) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 41(8): 1283–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pericevic I, Lally C, Toner D, Kelly D (2009) The influence of plaque composition on underlying arterial wall stress during stent expansion: the case for lesion-specific stents. Med Eng Phys 31(4): 428–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petrini L, Migliavacca F, Auricchio F, Dubini G (2004) Numerical investigation of the intravascular coronary stent flexibility. J Biomech 37(4): 495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwartz RS, Huber KC, Murphy JG, Edwards WD, Camrud AR, Vlietstra RE, Holmes DR (1992) Restenosis and the proportional neointimal response to coronary artery injury: results in a porcine model. J Am Coll Cardiol 19: 267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Serruys P (1997) Handbook of coronary stents, 4th edn. Martin Dunitz Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Sobol I (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55(1–3): 271–280CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Statnikov R, Matusov J (2002) Multicriteria analysis in engineering: using the PSI method with MOVI 1.0. Kluwer, DordrechtzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Wang W, Liang D, Yang D, Qi M (2006) Analysis of the transient expansion behavior and design optimization of coronary stents by finite element method. J Biomech 39(1): 21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wentzel J, Krams R, Schuurbiers J, Oomen J, Kloet J, Giessen W, Serruys P, Slager C (2001) Relationship between neointimal thickness and shear stress after wallstent implantation in human coronary arteries. Circulation 103: 1740–1745Google Scholar
  54. Wong H, Cho K, Tang W (2009) Bending of a stented atherosclerotic artery. In: Proceedings of the COMSOL conference 2009 BostonGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu W, Yang D, Qi M, Wang W (2007) An FEA method to study flexibility of expanded coronary stents. J Mater Process Technol 184(1–3): 447–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu W, Petrini L, Gastaldi D, Villa T, Vedani M, Lesma E, Previtali B, Migliavacca F (2010) Finite element shape optimization for biodegradable magnesium alloy stents. Ann Biomed Eng 38(9): 2829–2840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhou J, Tits A, Lawrence C (1998) User’s guide for FFSQP version 3.7: A FORTRAN code for solving constrained nonlinear (minimax) optimization problems, generating iterates satisfying all inequality and linear constraints. Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  58. Zunino P, D’Angelo C, Petrini L, Vergara C, Capelli C, Migliavacca F (2009) Numerical simulation of drug eluting coronary stents: mechanics, fluid dynamics and drug release. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 198(45–46): 3633–3644CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanjay Pant
    • 1
  • Neil W. Bressloff
    • 1
    Email author
  • Georges Limbert
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Engineering Sciences, Computational Engineering Design GroupUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.School of Engineering Sciences, National Centre for Advanced Tribology at Southampton (nCATS)University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.School of Engineering Sciences, Bioengineering Sciences Research GroupUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations