Critical parameter of burst pressure measurement in development of bypass grafts is highly dependent on methodology used

Background: Because of the low patency rate of currently available vascular bypass grafts, researchers are working towards the development of alternative bypass grafts, ranging from synthetic prostheses to wholly biologic living grafts. The philosophy of measurement required by regulatory agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as to gain the Conformite Europeene (CE) mark is to test above and beyond the limits that would be expected physiologically. The critical parameter of burst pressure is needed for Conformite Europeene (CE) mark or United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before clinical trials can proceed. An accurate measurement of burst pressure in potential porous vascular bypass grafts is, therefore, of utmost importance to ensure adequate strength on implantation in animals and subsequent clinical use. A wide range of methods to measure burst pressure have been used. We tested the burst pressure of a new polyurethane-based nanocomposite vascular prosthesis by using different methods to assess whether the method used affected the results. Methods: Water was infused at flow rates of 0.2, 50, and 100 mL/min through a syringe pump into latex sleeve-lined porous prostheses manufactured from a poly(carbonate-urea)urethane nanocomposite incorporating silsesquioxane. At the lowest infusion rate, the inflation was done with and without a nonporous inner lining sleeve. A pressure transducer was used to record the peak pressure achieved. Results: Using a nonporous sleeve resulted in a higher burst pressure (428 mm Hg vs 341 mm Hg) at a flow rate of 0.2 mL/min. A lower infusion rate (0.2 mL/min) produced a lower burst pressure than 50 mL/min (428 nun Hg vs 451 mm Hg). No significant difference was found in burst pressure using infusion rates of 50 mL/min and 100 mL/min. Conclusions: The use of a nonporous sleeve removes the potential weakness presented by the pores themselves. A continuous high infusion rate consistently overestimates burst pressure. These methods may not reflect the physiologic state. Care needs to be taken in interpretation of methodology for burst pressure measurement, and the rate of infusion should be stated in any description of the method.