scholarly journals Clinical outcome and bridge to transplant rate of left ventricular assist device recipient patients: comparison between continuous-flow and pulsatile-flow devices☆

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Garatti ◽  
Giuseppe Bruschi ◽  
Tiziano Colombo ◽  
Claudio Russo ◽  
Marco Lanfranconi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Continuous Flow ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Bridge To Transplant ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Flow Devices

Effect of Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device on Cardiac Function: Simulation Study With a Biventricular Computer Model

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yajuan Wang ◽  
Antonio Ferreira ◽  
Bradley B. Keller ◽  
Marc Simon ◽  
James F. Antaki
Keyword(s):  
Left Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Continuous Flow ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Bridge To Transplant ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
End Stage

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has become an established treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure as either a bridge to transplant (BTT) or as permanent support (destination therapy: DT) [1]. For a small portion of patients, LVAD could be used as a bridge to cardiac recovery (BTR). Recent clinical studies have demonstrated the advantages of continuous-flow LVADs over pulsatile-flow counterparts with respect to higher survival rates and lower incidence of major adverse events [2]. However, the control challenge of continuous-flow LVADs has been not fully addressed: most of the devices are driven at a constant speed, which does not take into account changes in patient physiologic demands [3, 4].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document