Back

Nitinol Material Properties Of 11 Commercial Peripheral Stents Determined Using Inverse Computational Analysis

Anttila, E.; Maleckis, K.; Jadidi, M.; Desyatova, A.; MacTaggart, J.; Kamenskiy, A.

2025-12-01 bioengineering
10.1101/2025.11.27.691034 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Stent-artery interactions are influenced by the mechanical properties of self-expanding Nitinol stents, but data on these characteristics remain limited. Eleven stents (Absolute Pro, S.M.A.R.T. Control, Misago, Zilver, Complete SE, EverFlex, Innova, Pulsar-18, LifeStent, S.M.A.R.T. Flex, and Supera) used to treat peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were subjected to axial tension, compression, three-point bending, and torsion tests, and the data on reaction forces and moments were compared with finite element simulations of the same experiments. Inverse computational analysis was used to determine austenite and martensite elasticity, transformation stretch, stresses at the start and end of transformation loading, and the start of transformation stress in compression. Uniaxial tensile tests were done on isolated struts from Absolute Pro and Zilver stents to verify the results of the inverse analysis. Our study demonstrate that Nitinol material properties are significantly different across devices. Austenite elasticity ranged 7.5-85 GPa, martensite elasticity 10-47.8 GPa, transformation stretch 1.03-1.08, the start of transformation loading stress 386-465 MPa, the end of transformation loading stress 411-535 MPa, and the start of transformation stress in compression 150-900 MPa. Nitinol of S.M.A.R.T. Control and S.M.A.R.T. Flex devices had the softest response, while Pulsar-18 had the hardest. The presented Nitinol mechanical properties of commonly used PAD stents can improve the fidelity of computational models investigating stent-artery interactions and may help improve clinical outcomes of endovascular PAD repairs through better device design.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.7%
2
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.9%
4
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
6
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
8
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
9
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
10
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
11
Acta Biomaterialia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
12
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
14
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
Biomaterials
78 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
17
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
18
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
Advanced Materials Technologies
27 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
20
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.8%
21
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.8%
22
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
23
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
25
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.5%
26
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%