Jeffrey R Gohean1,2, Erik R Larson3, Raul G Longoria4, Mark Kurusz3, Richard W Smalling5. 1. Windmill Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, Austin, TX, USA. jgohean@windmillcvs.com. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. jgohean@windmillcvs.com. 3. Windmill Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, Austin, TX, USA. 4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, UTHealth/McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compares preload sensitivity of continuous flow (CF) VAD support to counterpulsation using the Windmill toroidal VAD (TORVAD). The TORVAD is a two-piston rotary pump that ejects 30 mL in early diastole, which increases cardiac output while preserving aortic valve flow. METHODS: Preload sensitivity was compared for CF vs. TORVAD counterpulse support using two lumped parameter models of the cardiovascular system: (1) an open-loop model of the systemic circulation was used to obtain ventricular function curves by isolating the systemic circulation and prescribing preload and afterload boundary conditions, and (2) a closed-loop model was used to test the physiological response to changes in pulmonary vascular resistance, systemic vascular resistance, heart rate, inotropic state, and blood volume. In the open-loop model, ventricular function curves (cardiac output vs left ventricular preload) are used to assess preload sensitivity. In the closed-loop model, left ventricular end systolic volume is used to assess the risk of left ventricular suction. RESULTS: At low preloads of 5 mmHg, CF support overpumps the circulation compared to TORVAD counterpulse support (cardiac output of 3.3 L/min for the healthy heart, 4.7 with CF support, and 3.5 with TORVAD counterpulse support) and has much less sensitivity than counterpulse support (0.342 L/min/mmHg for the healthy heart, 0.092 with CF support, and 0.306 with TORVAD counterpulse support). In the closed-loop model, when PVR is increased beyond 0.035 mmHg s/mL, CF support overpumps the circulation and causes ventricular suction events, but TORVAD counterpulse support maintains sufficient ventricular volume and does not cause suction. CONCLUSIONS: Counterpulse support with the TORVAD preserves aortic valve flow and provides physiological sensitivity across all preload conditions. This should prevent overpumping and minimize the risk of suction.
PURPOSE: This study compares preload sensitivity of continuous flow (CF) VAD support to counterpulsation using the Windmill toroidal VAD (TORVAD). The TORVAD is a two-piston rotary pump that ejects 30 mL in early diastole, which increases cardiac output while preserving aortic valve flow. METHODS: Preload sensitivity was compared for CF vs. TORVAD counterpulse support using two lumped parameter models of the cardiovascular system: (1) an open-loop model of the systemic circulation was used to obtain ventricular function curves by isolating the systemic circulation and prescribing preload and afterload boundary conditions, and (2) a closed-loop model was used to test the physiological response to changes in pulmonary vascular resistance, systemic vascular resistance, heart rate, inotropic state, and blood volume. In the open-loop model, ventricular function curves (cardiac output vs left ventricular preload) are used to assess preload sensitivity. In the closed-loop model, left ventricular end systolic volume is used to assess the risk of left ventricular suction. RESULTS: At low preloads of 5 mmHg, CF support overpumps the circulation compared to TORVAD counterpulse support (cardiac output of 3.3 L/min for the healthy heart, 4.7 with CF support, and 3.5 with TORVAD counterpulse support) and has much less sensitivity than counterpulse support (0.342 L/min/mmHg for the healthy heart, 0.092 with CF support, and 0.306 with TORVAD counterpulse support). In the closed-loop model, when PVR is increased beyond 0.035 mmHg s/mL, CF support overpumps the circulation and causes ventricular suction events, but TORVAD counterpulse support maintains sufficient ventricular volume and does not cause suction. CONCLUSIONS: Counterpulse support with the TORVAD preserves aortic valve flow and provides physiological sensitivity across all preload conditions. This should prevent overpumping and minimize the risk of suction.
Authors: Jo P Pauls; Michael C Stevens; Emma Schummy; Geoff Tansley; John F Fraser; Daniel Timms; Shaun D Gregory Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: James K Kirklin; Francis D Pagani; Robert L Kormos; Lynne W Stevenson; Elizabeth D Blume; Susan L Myers; Marissa A Miller; J Timothy Baldwin; James B Young; David C Naftel Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Timothy Conover; Anthony M Hlavacek; Francesco Migliavacca; Ethan Kung; Adam Dorfman; Richard S Figliola; Tain-Yen Hsia Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: George V Letsou; Thomas D Pate; Jeffrey R Gohean; Mark Kurusz; Raul G Longoria; Larry Kaiser; Richard W Smalling Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-05-23 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Jeffrey R Gohean; Mitchell J George; Kay-Won Chang; Erik R Larson; Thomas D Pate; Mark Kurusz; Raul G Longoria; Richard W Smalling Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.872