Comparative analysis of cardiac mechano-energetics in isolated hearts supported by pulsatile or rotary blood pumps.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 12 2019
27 12 2019
Historique:
received:
05
05
2019
accepted:
10
12
2019
entrez:
29
12
2019
pubmed:
29
12
2019
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The previously more frequently implanted pulsatile blood pumps (PBPs) showed higher recovery rates than the currently preferred rotary blood pumps (RBPs), with unclear causality. The aim of this study was to comparatively assess the capability of PBPs and RPBs to unload the left ventricle and maintain cardiac energetics as a possible implication for recovery. An RBP and a heartbeat synchronized PBP were alternately connected to isolated porcine hearts. Rotational speed of RBPs was set to different support levels. For PBP support, the start of ejection was phased to different points during the cardiac cycle, prescribed as percentage delays from 0% to 90%. Cardiac efficiency, quantified by the ratio of external work over myocardial oxygen consumption, was determined. For RBP support, higher degrees of RBP support correlated with lower left atrial pressures (LAP) and lower cardiac efficiency (r = 0.91 ± 0.12). In contrast, depending on the phase delay of a PBP, LAP and cardiac efficiency exhibited a sinusoidal relationship with the LAP minimum at 90% and efficiency maximum at 60%. Phasing of a PBP offers the possibility to maintain a high cardiac efficiency and simultaneously unload the ventricle. These results warrant future studies investigating whether optimized cardiac energetics promotes functional recovery with LVAD therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31882656
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56344-8
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-56344-8
pmc: PMC6934785
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20058Références
N Engl J Med. 2009 Dec 03;361(23):2241-51
pubmed: 19920051
Heart Lung Vessel. 2015;7(4):289-96
pubmed: 26811834
ASAIO J. 2006 May-Jun;52(3):228-33
pubmed: 16760709
J Artif Organs. 2017 Sep;20(3):194-199
pubmed: 28429120
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017 Jan;36(1):42-49
pubmed: 27776988
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2018 Jun;37(6):685-691
pubmed: 29550146
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Sep;146(3):710-7
pubmed: 23317942
ASAIO J. 2017 Jul/Aug;63(4):445-449
pubmed: 28471759
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016 Apr;35(4):413-20
pubmed: 26922277
Circulation. 1992 Mar;85(3):988-96
pubmed: 1537135
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2012 Jun;14(3):293-8
pubmed: 22437373
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2465-72
pubmed: 23158527
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 May;91(5):1335-40
pubmed: 21444064
Circ Res. 1989 Aug;65(2):483-93
pubmed: 2752553
Front Med Biol Eng. 1990;2(1):3-22
pubmed: 2271404
ASAIO J. 2007 May-Jun;53(3):263-77
pubmed: 17515714
JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016 Oct;1(6):432-444
pubmed: 28497127
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2009 Feb;47(2):131-41
pubmed: 18543011
Circulation. 2007 May 15;115(19):2497-505
pubmed: 17485581
Am Heart J. 2018 Dec;206:30-50
pubmed: 30300847
Hypertens Res. 2015 Aug;38(8):530-8
pubmed: 25787044
Heart Fail Rev. 2019 Mar;24(2):237-244
pubmed: 30302658
Int J Artif Organs. 2013 Dec;36(12):878-86
pubmed: 24362896
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015 Dec;34(12):1495-504
pubmed: 26520247
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Oct 14;64(15):1602-12
pubmed: 25301465
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 31;72(5):569-580
pubmed: 30056830
Artif Organs. 2007 May;31(5):369-76
pubmed: 17470206
J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2007 Sep;43(3):231-42
pubmed: 17651751
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017 Oct;36(10):1080-1086
pubmed: 28942782