Why the study?
Does a pulsatile LVAD with counter-pulsation mode improve coronary perfusion and reduce ventricular afterload compared to co-pulsation or continuous flow modes in a computational heart failure model?
Population
A 16-compartment computational cardiovascular system model simulating heart failure.
Comparison
Pulsatile left ventricular assist device… vs Pulsatile LVAD operating in co-pulsation mode…
Design
Preclinical
Key result
In a computational model of heart failure, a pulsatile left ventricular assist device in counter-pulsation mode provided the highest coronary perfusion and lowest peak left ventricular pressure.
Authors
Loading...
Cautious interpretation required for this computational model; leaves open whether counter-pulsation LVAD modes improve outcomes in clinical heart failure.
Does a pulsatile LVAD with counter-pulsation mode improve coronary perfusion and reduce ventricular afterload compared to co-pulsation or continuous flow modes in a computational heart failure model?
Absolute Event Rate: 43% vs 51%
In a computational model of heart failure, a pulsatile LVAD operating in counter-pulsation mode provided superior coronary perfusion and greater reduction in ventricular afterload compared to continuous flow or co-pulsation modes.
Lim et al. (2009) studied Heart failure (computational model). Pulsatile LVAD in counter-pulsation mode vs. Co-pulsation and continuous flow modes was evaluated on Peak left ventricular pressure (mmHg). In a computational model of heart failure, a pulsatile left ventricular assist device in counter-pulsation mode provided the highest coronary perfusion and lowest peak left ventricular pressure.