BACKGROUND: Within the past 10 years, continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have replaced pulsatile-flow LVADs as the standard of care for both destination therapy and bridging patients to heart transplantation. Despite the rapid clinical adoption of continuous-flow LVADs, an understanding of the effects of continuous-flow physiology, as opposed to more natural pulsatile-flow physiology, is still evolving. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thorough review of the relevant scientific literature regarding the physiological and clinical effects of continuous-flow physiology was performed. These effects were analyzed on an organ system basis and include an evaluation of the cardiovascular, respiratory, hematologic, gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, neurologic, immunologic, and endocrine systems. RESULTS: Continuous-flow physiology is, generally speaking, well tolerated over the long term. However, several changes are manifest at the organ system level. Although many of these changes are without appreciable clinical significance, other changes, such as an increased rate of gastrointestinal bleeding, appear to be associated with continuous-flow physiology. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous-flow LVADs confer a significant advantage over their pulsatile-flow counterparts with regard to size and durability. From a physiological standpoint, continuous-flow physiology has limited clinical effects at the organ system level. Although improved over previous generations, challenges with this technology remain. Approaching these problems with a combination of clinical and engineering solutions may be needed to achieve continued progression in the field of durable mechanical circulatory support.
BACKGROUND: Within the past 10 years, continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have replaced pulsatile-flow LVADs as the standard of care for both destination therapy and bridging patients to heart transplantation. Despite the rapid clinical adoption of continuous-flow LVADs, an understanding of the effects of continuous-flow physiology, as opposed to more natural pulsatile-flow physiology, is still evolving. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thorough review of the relevant scientific literature regarding the physiological and clinical effects of continuous-flow physiology was performed. These effects were analyzed on an organ system basis and include an evaluation of the cardiovascular, respiratory, hematologic, gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, neurologic, immunologic, and endocrine systems. RESULTS: Continuous-flow physiology is, generally speaking, well tolerated over the long term. However, several changes are manifest at the organ system level. Although many of these changes are without appreciable clinical significance, other changes, such as an increased rate of gastrointestinal bleeding, appear to be associated with continuous-flow physiology. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous-flow LVADs confer a significant advantage over their pulsatile-flow counterparts with regard to size and durability. From a physiological standpoint, continuous-flow physiology has limited clinical effects at the organ system level. Although improved over previous generations, challenges with this technology remain. Approaching these problems with a combination of clinical and engineering solutions may be needed to achieve continued progression in the field of durable mechanical circulatory support.
Authors: R D Dowling; S J Park; F D Pagani; A J Tector; Y Naka; T B Icenogle; V L Poirier; O H Frazier Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: E M Pollock; J C Pollock; M P Jamieson; G S Beastall; C Wright; B Torsney; L R McNicol Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 1988-04 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: K M Taylor; G S Wright; J M Reid; W H Bain; P K Caves; M S Walker; J K Grant Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1978-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: K Kono; D M Philbin; C H Coggins; E E Slater; A Triantafillou; F H Levine; M J Buckley Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1983-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Stefan Klotz; Mario C Deng; Joerg Stypmann; Juergen Roetker; Markus J Wilhelm; Dieter Hammel; Hans H Scheld; Christof Schmid Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: W C DeVries; J L Anderson; L D Joyce; F L Anderson; E H Hammond; R K Jarvik; W J Kolff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1984-02-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Darius G Nabavi; Joerg Stockmann; Christof Schmid; Michael Schneider; Dieter Hammel; Hans H Scheld; E Bernd Ringelstein Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: George V Letsou; Timothy J Myers; Igor D Gregoric; Reynolds Delgado; Nyma Shah; Kimberly Robertson; Branislav Radovancevic; O H Frazier Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Quin E Denfeld; Christopher S Lee; William R Woodward; Shirin O Hiatt; James O Mudd; Beth A Habecker Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Annemijn Vis; Maziar Arfaee; Husain Khambati; Mark S Slaughter; Jan F Gummert; Johannes T B Overvelde; Jolanda Kluin Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 32.419