Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The use of pressure changes as a surveillance mechanism still requires a better
understanding from the medical community. Nevertheless, AAA model simulation
results validate the use of pressure sensors to detect post-EVAR complications. Al-
though more data is required, multiple pressure measurements within the aneurysm
sac can also enable the detection of stent-graft structural failure.
In order to place the sensors in the stent-graft, they must be thin and highly
flexible. A newly developed technology based on CNTs has proven successful in
the development of flexible pressure sensors and might enable the next generation
of smart stent-grafts.
Acknowledgments
The first and second authors wishes to thank FCT - Funda¸ ao para a Ciencia
e Tecnologia in Portugal, for the financial support provided by the PhD grants with reference
SFRH/BD/42967/2008 and SFRH/BD/42922/2008 respectively.
This work is supported by FEDER through COMPETE and national funds through FCT -
Foundation
for
Science
and
Technology
in
the framework
of
the project
MIT-Pt/EDAM-
EMD/0007/2008
(
http://sensecardiohealth.wordpress.com
)
.
The authors wish to thank Miguel Marafuz for the illustrations, Fabio Fachin for helpful
discussions in the CNT-based MEMS device designs, and Dr. Roberto Guzman de Villoria for
fabrication and testing assistance of the CNT-reinforced PDMS materials.
CNT-based polymer composite materials were developed with funding from Airbus S. A. S.,
Boeing, Embraer, Lockheed Martin, Saab AB, Spirit AeroSystems, Textron Inc., Composite
Systems Technology, and TohoTenax Inc. through MIT's Nano-Engineered Composite aerospace
STructures (NECST) Consortium.
References
1. Johnston KW, Robert BR, Tilson MD, Dhiraj MS, Larry H, James CS (1991) Suggested
standards for reporting on arterial aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 13(3):452-458
2. Ricotta JJ II, Malgor RD, Oderich GS (2009) Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair:
part I. Ann Vasc Surg 23(6):799-812. doi:
10.1016/j.avsg.2009.03.003
3. Katzen BT, MacLean AA (2006) Complications of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic
aneurysms: a review. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29(6):935-946. doi:
10.1007/s00270-005-
0191-0
4. Baril DT, Kahn RA, Ellozy SH, Carroccio A, Marin ML (2007) Endovascular abdominal aortic
aneurysm repair: emerging developments and anesthetic considerations. J Cardiothorac Vasc
Anesth 21(5):730-742. doi:
10.1053/j.jvca.2007.03.001
5. Young KC, Awad NA, Johansson M, Gillespie D, Singh MJ, Illig KA (2010) Cost-effectiveness
of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair based on aneurysm size. J Vasc Surg 51(1):27-32.
6. Myers K, Devine T, Barras C, Self G (2001) Endoluminal versus open repair for abdominal
aortic aneurysms. Paper presented at the 2do. Congreso Virtual de Cardiologıa - Congreso
Internacional de Cardiologıa por Internet, Argentina, Set 1 - 30 Nov 2001
7. Dion Y-M, Joseph T (2010) Laparoscopic aortic surgery. In: Fogarty TJ, White RA (eds)
Peripheral endovascular interventions. Springer, New York, pp 397-409, doi:10.1007/978-1-
4419-1387-6 27
8. Greenhalgh RM (2004) Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in
patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results:
randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364(9437):843-848. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16979-1
