Abstract
To evaluate and compare the healing response related to two types of graft-covered Wallstents (WSs) and an uncovered WS in the canine iliac artery. Eight bare mesh WSs, 10 polyethylene terephthalate interbraided WSs (PET-WSs), and six polytetrafluoroethylene covered WSs (ePTFE-WSs) were placed in the iliac arteries of 12 dogs. Arteriograms were obtained before and after implantation and at explantation. Devices were explanted at 1 month (n = 8), 3 months (n = 6), and 6 months (n = 10) and sent for histologic study. One ePTFE-covered stent-graft was found to be thrombosed at 3 months; the remaining 23 of 24 implants remained patent to the time of explantation. The WS and ePTFE-WS both generated a uniform myointimal cell response without inflammation. The PET-WS induced a fibrous luminal response with substantial foreign body-type inflammatory reaction around the PET fibers. Although neointima associated with the PET-WS appeared thicker than that associated with either the ePTFE-WS or the bare WS, none of the patent implants developed greater than 50% angiographic narrowing. The PET-WS induced chronic inflammation, a response not seen with either the WS or ePTFE-WS. This may explain the occurrence of pain and/or fever in human studies of arterial PET endoluminal stent-grafts. Patency for all three implants was excellent in this model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
