In Vitro Comparison of Two Different Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Installed in Series and in Parallel

2014 ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a
Author(s):  
Mohammad Amin Rezaienia ◽  
Akbar Rahideh ◽  
Martin Terry Rothman ◽  
Scott A. Sell ◽  
Kyle Mitchell ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (11) ◽  
pp. 710-718
Author(s):  
Nicholas Roberts ◽  
Uma Chandrasekaran ◽  
Soumen Das ◽  
Zhongwei Qi ◽  
Scott Corbett

Introduction: Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices provide temporary hemodynamic support in heart failure and are increasingly used to enable recovery or as a bridge to decision. Blood damage with mechanical circulatory support devices is influenced by many factors, including the magnitude and duration of shear stress and obstruction to blood flow. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the Impella CP® heart pump positioning on hemolysis using in vitro hemolysis testing and computational fluid dynamics modeling. Methods: The in vitro hemolysis testing was conducted per the recommended Food and Drug Administration and American Society for Testing and Materials guidelines. The bench hemolysis testing and computational fluid dynamics simulation analysis were performed for both normal operating (outlet unobstructed) and outlet-obstructed condition of Impella CP (mimicking outlet on the aortic valve due to improper positioning). Results: The modified index of hemolysis was 2.78 ± 0.69 at normal operating conditions compared to 18.7 ± 7.8 when the Impella CP outlet was obstructed ( p = 0.002). Computational fluid dynamics modeling showed about three times increase in exposure time to regions of high shear stress when the Impella CP outlet was obstructed compared to unobstructed condition, thus supporting the experimental observations. Conclusion: Based on these results, it is recommended to ensure proper placement of Impella CP via regular monitoring using echocardiographic guidance or other methods to minimize the risk of hemolysis associated with an obstructed outflow.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-433
Author(s):  
Emalie Petersen

Heart failure is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Treatment of this condition increasingly involves mechanical circulatory support devices. Even with optimal medical therapy and use of simple cardiac devices, heart failure often leads to reduced quality of life and a shortened life span, prompting exploration of more advanced treatment approaches. Left ventricular assist devices constitute an effective alternative to cardiac transplantation. These devices are not without complications, however, and their use requires careful cooperative management by the patient’s cardiology team and primary care provider. Left ventricular assist devices have undergone many technological advancements since they were first introduced, and they will continue to evolve. This article reviews the history of different types of left ventricular assist devices, appropriate patient selection, and common complications in order to increase health professionals’ familiarity with these treatment options.


ASAIO Journal ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. M423-M426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory K. MacLean ◽  
Peter A. Aiken ◽  
William A. Adams ◽  
Tofy Mussivand

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (08) ◽  
pp. 5578-5583
Author(s):  
Usman Sarwar ◽  
Nikky Bardia ◽  
Amod Amritphale ◽  
Hassan Tahir ◽  
MD Ghulam M.Awan

Statistical data has shown that patients now treated in cardiac catheterization laboratories are older with several comorbidities, including renal failure, diabetes, and heart failure [1]. In past patients who were not suitable candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention due to their numerous comorbidities now seems to be a suitable candidate due to tremendous advancements in the field of interventional cardiology like new stent design and availability of advance mechanical circulatory support devices, i.e., Impella performing PCI on these high-risk patients become a viable option. There are two areas of cardiology in which mechanical circulatory support devices keep evolving: one is high-risk (percutaneous coronary intervention) PCI, and the other is a cardiogenic shock that is refractory to initial pressor support.  In this article, we review evidence base data regarding the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document