| Title |
A novel in vitro model for preclinical testing of the hemocompatibility of intravascular stents according to ISO 10993-4
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-011-4335-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Sinn, Torsten Scheuermann, Stephan Deichelbohrer, Gerhard Ziemer, Hans P. Wendel |
| Abstract |
Subacute stent thrombosis, caused by undesired interactions between blood and the stent surface, is a major concern in the first few weeks following coronary artery stent implantation. The aim of this study was to establish a novel in vitro model for hemocompatibility testing of coronary artery stents according to ISO 10993-4. The model consists of a modified Chandler-Loop design with closed heparin-coated PVC Loops and a thermostated water bath. The tests were performed with anticoagulated human whole blood. After incubation in the loop, blood was analyzed for coagulation and inflammatory activation markers (TAT, β-TG, sP-selectin, SC5b-9 and PMN-elastase). Three different stent types with varying thrombogenicity were tested; statistically significant differences were found between the three stent types in measures of coagulation and platelet activation. The new Chandler-Loop model can be used as an alternative to animal and current in vitro models, especially for the determination of early events after stent implantation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 24% |
| Researcher | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 22% |
| Engineering | 18 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 16% |
| Materials Science | 7 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,510,214
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#98
of 1,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,084
of 111,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,400 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.