Suppr超能文献

验证当前评分球囊评分效果的差异。

Verification of the differences of scoring effect in current scoring balloons.

作者信息

Kinoshita Yoshihisa, Iwasaki Kiyotaka, Suzuki Takahiko

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Toyohashi Heart Center, 21-1 Gobutori, Oyamacho, Toyohashi, Aichi, 441-8530, Japan.

Cooperative Major in Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Joint Graduate School of Tokyo Women's Medical University and Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2022 Jul;37(3):513-518. doi: 10.1007/s12928-021-00807-1. Epub 2021 Aug 25.

Abstract

The characteristics of each scoring balloon seem to be different because material or configuration of scoring element in each device is unique. The aim of this study is to clarify the difference of scoring effect among 3 different scoring devices. We prepared 3 different scoring devices [Wolverine™ Cutting Balloon™ (CB), ScoreFlex™ NC (SF), NSE Alpha™ (NSE), n = 5 respectively. Balloon diameter is 3 mm and 2 types of silicone tubes with different elasticity [140 kPa (tube S) and 576 kPa (tube H), respectively. Inner diameter is 3 mm]. We dilated each balloon in each silicone tube with nominal pressure (NP) and 20 atmosphere (HP) and took a picture using a micro CT. We measured penetration depth of all scoring elements into silicone tube wall and calculated their percentage using the following formula; penetration depth/original scoring element height × 100. We also observed the deformation of scoring element during balloon inflation in each device. Scoring element of CB cut deeper into both tubes significantly than SF and NSE at both pressure (40.5% vs 25.1% and 16.8% at NP and 86.1% vs 33.5% and 29.1% at HP in tube S, p < 0.01, respectively, 62.6% vs 33.5% and 17.0% at NP and 93.3% vs 45.1% and 36.5% at HP in tube H, p < 0.01, respectively). Although no deformation of scoring element was recognized in CB, some deformations were observed in 50% of NSE and 40% of SF (p = 0.0377). Scoring balloon with sharp and firmly fixed scoring elements like CB may show definite scoring effect.

摘要

每个评分球囊的特性似乎有所不同,因为每个装置中评分元件的材料或结构都是独特的。本研究的目的是阐明三种不同评分装置之间评分效果的差异。我们准备了三种不同的评分装置[金刚狼™切割球囊™(CB)、ScoreFlex™ NC(SF)、NSE Alpha™(NSE),每种各5个。球囊直径为3毫米,有两种不同弹性的硅胶管[分别为140千帕(管S)和576千帕(管H)。内径为3毫米]。我们用标称压力(NP)和20个大气压(HP)在每个硅胶管中扩张每个球囊,并用微型CT拍照。我们测量了所有评分元件进入硅胶管壁的穿透深度,并使用以下公式计算其百分比;穿透深度/原始评分元件高度×100。我们还观察了每个装置中球囊膨胀过程中评分元件的变形情况。在两种压力下,CB的评分元件切入两根管子的深度均明显深于SF和NSE(在管S中,NP时分别为40.5%对25.1%和16.8%,HP时为86.1%对33.5%和29.1%,p均<0.01;在管H中,NP时分别为62.6%对33.5%和17.0%,HP时为93.3%对45.1%和36.5%,p均<0.01)。虽然在CB中未发现评分元件变形,但在50%的NSE和40%的SF中观察到了一些变形(p = 0.0377)。像CB这样具有尖锐且固定牢固的评分元件的评分球囊可能显示出明确的评分效果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验