Literature DB >> 20613490

Hemodynamic responses to continuous versus pulsatile mechanical unloading of the failing left ventricle.

Carlo R Bartoli1, Guruprasad A Giridharan, Kenneth N Litwak, Michael Sobieski, Sumanth D Prabhu, Mark S Slaughter, Steven C Koenig.   

Abstract

Debate exists regarding the merits and limitations of continuous versus pulsatile flow mechanical circulatory support. To characterize the hemodynamic differences between each mode of support, we investigated the acute effects of continuous versus pulsatile unloading of the failing left ventricle in a bovine model. Heart failure was induced in male calves (n = 14). During an acute study, animals were instrumented through thoracotomy for hemodynamic measurement. A continuous flow (n = 8) and/or pulsatile flow (n = 8) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) was implanted and studied during maximum support ( approximately 5 L/min) and moderate support ( approximately 2-3 L/min) modes. Pulse pressure (PP), surplus hemodynamic energy (SHE), and (energy equivalent pressure [EEP]/mean aortic pressure (MAP) - 1) x 100% were derived to characterize hemodynamic energy profiles during the different support modes. Standard hemodynamic parameters of cardiac performance were also derived. Data were analyzed by repeated measures one-way analysis of variance within groups and unpaired Student's t-tests across groups. During maximum and moderate continuous unloading, PP, SHE, and (EEP/MAP - 1) x 100% were significantly decreased compared with baseline and compared with pulsatile unloading. As a result, continuous unloading significantly altered left ventricular peak systolic pressure, aortic systolic and diastolic pressure, +/-dP/dt, and rate x pressure product, whereas pulsatile unloading preserved a normal profile of physiologic values. As continuous unloading increased, the pressure-volume relationship collapsed, and the aortic valve remained closed. In contrast, as pulsatile unloading increased, a comparable decrease in left ventricular volumes was noted. However, a normal range of left ventricular pressures was preserved. Continuous unloading deranged the physiologic profile of myocardial and vascular hemodynamic energy utilization, whereas pulsatile unloading preserved more normal physiologic values. These findings may have important implications for chronic LVAD therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20613490     DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0b013e3181e7bf3c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ASAIO J        ISSN: 1058-2916            Impact factor:   2.872


  18 in total

1.  The future of adult cardiac assist devices: novel systems and mechanical circulatory support strategies.

Authors:  Carlo R Bartoli; Robert D Dowling
Journal:  Cardiol Clin       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.213

2.  Verification of a computational cardiovascular system model comparing the hemodynamics of a continuous flow to a synchronous valveless pulsatile flow left ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Gohean; Mitchell J George; Thomas D Pate; Mark Kurusz; Raul G Longoria; Richard W Smalling
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.872

3.  Nonphysiologic blood flow triggers endothelial and arterial remodeling in vivo: implications for novel left ventricular assist devices with a peripheral anastomosis.

Authors:  Carlo R Bartoli; Paul A Spence; Thorsten Siess; Daniel H Raess; Steven C Koenig; Robert D Dowling
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  Effects of continuous-flow versus pulsatile-flow left ventricular assist devices on myocardial unloading and remodeling.

Authors:  Tomoko S Kato; Aalap Chokshi; Parvati Singh; Tuba Khawaja; Faisal Cheema; Hirokazu Akashi; Khurram Shahzad; Shinichi Iwata; Shunichi Homma; Hiroo Takayama; Yoshifumi Naka; Ulrich Jorde; Maryjane Farr; Donna M Mancini; P Christian Schulze
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 8.790

5.  Vascular inflammation and abnormal aortic histomorphometry in patients after pulsatile- and continuous-flow left ventricular assist device placement.

Authors:  Mike Lee; Hirokazu Akashi; Tomoko S Kato; Hiroo Takayama; Christina Wu; Katherine Xu; Elias Collado; Matthew P Weber; Peter J Kennel; Danielle L Brunjes; Ruiping Ji; Yoshifumi Naka; Isaac George; Donna Mancini; Maryjane Farr; P Christian Schulze
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 10.247

Review 6.  Review of recent results using computational fluid dynamics simulations in patients receiving mechanical assist devices for end-stage heart failure.

Authors:  Mina Berty Farag; Christof Karmonik; Fabian Rengier; Matthias Loebe; Matthias Karck; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk; Arjang Ruhparwar; Sasan Partovi
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep

7.  Comparison of continuous-flow and pulsatile-flow left ventricular assist devices: is there an advantage to pulsatility?

Authors:  Allen Cheng; Christine A Williamitis; Mark S Slaughter
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-11

8.  Change in myocardial oxygen consumption employing continuous-flow LVAD with cardiac beat synchronizing system, in acute ischemic heart failure models.

Authors:  Akihide Umeki; Takashi Nishimura; Yoshiaki Takewa; Masahiko Ando; Mamoru Arakawa; Yuichiro Kishimoto; Tomonori Tsukiya; Toshihide Mizuno; Shunei Kyo; Minoru Ono; Yoshiyuki Taenaka; Eisuke Tatsumi
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 1.731

9.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation versus counterpulsatile, pulsatile, and continuous left ventricular unloading for pediatric mechanical circulatory support.

Authors:  Carlo R Bartoli; Steven C Koenig; Constantine Ionan; Kevin J Gillars; Mike E Mitchell; Erle H Austin; Laman A Gray; George M Pantalos
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.624

10.  Theoretical estimation of cannulation methods for left ventricular assist device support as a bridge to recovery.

Authors:  Ki Moo Lim; Jeong Sang Lee; Jin-Ho Song; Chan-Hyun Youn; Jae-Sung Choi; Eun Bo Shim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.