Shape Memory and Superelasticity

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 462–471 | Cite as

The Impact of Fatigue Testing and Surface Processing on Nickel Release in Nitinol Stents

  • Srinidhi NagarajaEmail author
  • Vaishnavi Chandrasekar
  • David Ormonde
  • Hailey Hickey
  • Kristen Lipschultz
  • Calvin Chao
  • Kent Vilendrer
  • Alan R. Pelton


Immersion testing of medical implants is typically performed under non-loaded conditions to assess susceptibility of metal ion release from a device. However, many implants are subjected to repetitive forces in vivo, which may increase ion release into surrounding tissues. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine whether fatigue loading of stents with different surface finishes accelerates nickel release. Nitinol stents with an electropolished (EP) oxide or blue oxide (BO) were assigned to the following groups: (1) static immersion without loading, (2) static fluid pressure and bend, (3) dynamic pressure on a static bend, and (4) dynamic bending with static pressure. Immersion fluid was collected periodically and analyzed for nickel concentration using ICP-MS. Results indicated nickel release under dynamic bending was greater by up to 280× for EP and 190× for BO finishes compared to all other groups (p < 0.02). Although not significant (p > 0.27), nickel release under dynamic pressure conditions was up to 50× higher compared to static groups. In addition, BO stents released up to 6× greater levels of nickel compared to EP stents for static immersion, dynamic pressure, and dynamic bending groups (p < 0.05). These findings highlight the impact of fatigue loading on uniform corrosion for different nitinol stent surfaces.


Cardiovascular stents Biocompatibility Nitinol Corrosion Nickel release Fatigue Surface processing 



This study was made possible through research collaborative agreements between FDA and Medical Device Testing (now Element Materials Technology Corporation) and G. Rau Inc. The authors would like to thank FDA researchers Shiril Sivan and Stacey Sullivan for technical assistance and David Saylor for manuscript review. The authors would like to acknowledge the FDA White Oak Nanotechnology Core Facility for instrument use, scientific and technical assistance. The findings and conclusions in this paper have not been formally disseminated by the Food and Drug Administration, are the views of the authors, and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. The mention of commercial products, their sources, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products by Department of Health and Human Services.


  1. 1.
    Decker JF, Trepanier C, Vien L, Pelton AR (2011) The Effect of material removal on the corrosion resistance and biocompatibility of nitinol laser-cut and wire-form products. J Mater Eng Perform 20(4–5):802–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trepanier C, Tabrizian M, Yahia L, Bilodeau L, Piron D (1996) Improvement of the corrosion resistance of NiTi stents by surface treatments. MRS Proceedings, Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, p. 363Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trepanier C, Tabrizian M, Yahia LH, Bilodeau L, Piron DL (1998) Effect of modification of oxide layer on NiTi stent corrosion resistance. J Biomed Mater Res 43(4):433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu L, Trepanier C, Pelton A, Fino JM (2003) Oxidation of nitinol and its effect on corrosion resistance, ASM Materials and Processes for Medical Devices Conference, ASM Publication, Materials ParkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saylor DM, Craven BA, Chandrasekar V, Simon DD, Brown RP, Sussman EM (2018) Predicting patient exposure to nickel released from cardiovascular devices using multi-scale modeling. Acta Biomater 70:304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Santin M, Mikhalovska L, Lloyd AW, Mikhalovsky S, Sigfrid L, Denyer SP, Field SN, Teer D (2004) In vitro host response assessment of biomaterials for cardiovascular stent manufacture. J Mater Sci 15(4):473–477Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wataha JC, O’Dell NL, Singh BB, Ghazi M, Whitford GM, Lockwood PE (2001) Relating nickel-induced tissue inflammation to nickel release in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res 58(5):537–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lai DW, Saver JL, Araujo JA, Reidl M, Tobis J (2005) Pericarditis associated with nickel hypersensitivity to the Amplatzer occluder device: a case report. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 66(3):424–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rigatelli G, Cardaioli P, Giordan M, Aggio S, Chinaglia M, Braggion G, Roncon L (2007) Nickel allergy in interatrial shunt device-based closure patients. Congenit Heart Dis 2(6):416–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gimenez-Arnau A, Riambau V, Serra-Baldrich E, Camarasa JG (2000) Metal-induced generalized pruriginous dermatitis and endovascular surgery. Contact Dermat 43(1):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Slavin L, Tobis JM, Rangarajan K, Dao C, Krivokapich J, Liebeskind DS (2007) Five-year experience with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale. Am J Cardiol 99(9):1316–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fukahara K, Minami K, Reiss N, Fassbender D, Koerfer R (2003) Systemic allergic reaction to the percutaneous patent foramen ovale occluder. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 125(1):213–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim KH, Park JC, Yoon NS, Moon JY, Hong YJ, Park HW, Kim JH, Ahn Y, Jeong MH, Cho JG (2008) A case of allergic contact dermatitis following transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus using Amplatzer ductal occluder. Int J Cardiol 127(2):e98–e99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khodaverdian RA, Jones KW (2009) Metal allergy to Amplatzer occluder device presented as severe bronchospasm. Ann Thorac Surg 88(6):2021–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jetty P, Jayaram S, Veinot J, Pratt M (2013) Superficial femoral artery nitinol stent in a patient with nickel allergy. J Vasc Surg 58(5):1388–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Köster R, Vieluf D, Kiehn M, Sommerauer M, Kähler J, Baldus S, Meinertz T, Hamm CW (2000) Nickel and molybdenum contact allergies in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis. Lancet 356(9245):1895–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hillen U, Haude M, Erbel R, Goos M (2002) Evaluation of metal allergies in patients with coronary stents. Contact Dermat 47(6):353–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iijima R, Ikari Y, Amiya E, Tanimoto S, Nakazawa G, Kyono H, Hatori M, Miyazawa A, Nakayama T, Aoki J (2005) The impact of metallic allergy on stent implantation: metal allergy and recurrence of in-stent restenosis. Int J Cardiol 104(3):319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Romero-Brufau S, Best PJ, Holmes DR, Mathew V, Davis MD, Sandhu GS, Lennon RJ, Rihal CS, Gulati R (2012) Outcomes after coronary stent implantation in patients with metal allergy. Circulation 5(2):220–226Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabkin DG, Whitehead KJ, Michaels AD, Powell DL, Karwande S (2009) Unusual presentation of nickel allergy requiring explantation of an Amplatzer atrial septal occluder device. Clin Cardiol 32(8):E55–E57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McLucas E, Rochev Y, Carroll WM, Smith TJ (2008) Analysis of the effects of surface treatments on nickel release from nitinol wires and their impact on candidate gene expression in endothelial cells. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19(3):975–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wever DJ, Veldhuizen AG, de Vries J, Busscher HJ, Uges DRA, van Horn JR (1998) Electrochemical and surface characterization of a nickel-titanium alloy. Biomaterials 19(7–9):761–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu S, Chu PK, Liu X, Chung C, Ho J, Chu C, Tjong S, Yeung K, Lu W, Cheung K (2006) Surface characteristics, mechanical properties, and cytocompatibility of oxygen plasma-implanted porous nickel titanium shape memory alloy. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A 79(1):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pérez LM, Gracia-Villa L, Puértolas JA, Arruebo M, Irusta S, Santamaria J (2009) Effect of Nitinol surface treatments on its physico-chemical properties. J Biomed Mater Res, Part B 91(1):337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cui Z, Man H, Yang X (2005) The corrosion and nickel release behavior of laser surface-melted NiTi shape memory alloy in Hanks’ solution. Surf Coat Technol 192(2):347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thierry B, Tabrizian M, Trepanier C, Savadogo O, Yahia LH (2000) Effect of surface treatment and sterilization processes on the corrosion behavior of NiTi shape memory alloy. J Biomed Mater Res 51(4):685–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sullivan SL, Dreher M, Zheng J, Chen L, Madamba D, Miyashiro K, Trépanier C, Nagaraja S (2015) Effects of oxide layer composition and radial compression on nickel release in nitinol stents. Shape Mem Superelasticity 1(3):319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clarke B, Carroll W, Rochev Y, Hynes M, Bradley D, Plumley D (2006) Influence of nitinol wire surface treatment on oxide thickness and composition and its subsequent effect on corrosion resistance and nickel ion release. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A 79(1):61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.G. Rau Inc.Santa ClaraUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Science and Engineering LaboratoriesSilver SpringUSA
  3. 3.Element Materials Technology CorporationMedical Device Testing ServicesMinnetonkaUSA

Personalised recommendations