Key result
A nonpulsatile pump required 25%-28% higher pump flow than a pulsatile pump to maintain equivalent coronary blood flow in a swine ventricular fibrillation model.
Why the study?
Does a nonpulsatile pump require higher pump flow than a pulsatile pump to maintain equivalent coronary blood flow in a fibrillating heart model?
Population
13 Yorkshire swine in a ventricular fibrillation model with a cardiopulmonary bypass circuit from the right…
Comparison
Nonpulsatile pump (Biopump) (n=6) vs Pulsatile pump (T-PLS) (n=7)
Design
Preclinical, Randomly divided into two groups
Follow-up
120 minutes
Authors
Loading...
Urges caution extrapolating swine results to practice; leaves open human validation of pulsatile flow benefits.
RCT (n=13)
Randomly divided
Does a nonpulsatile pump require higher pump flow than a pulsatile pump to maintain equivalent coronary blood flow in a fibrillating heart model?
Absolute Event Rate: 84% vs 67%
p-value: p=<0.05
In a swine model of ventricular fibrillation, nonpulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass required 25%-28% higher pump flow than pulsatile bypass to maintain equivalent coronary blood flow.
Jung et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in Ventricular fibrillation (n=13). Nonpulsatile pump (Biopump) vs. Pulsatile pump (T-PLS) was evaluated on Pump flow required to maintain equivalent coronary blood flow in the LAD at 20 minutes (p=<0.05). A nonpulsatile pump required 25%-28% higher pump flow than a pulsatile pump to maintain equivalent coronary blood flow in a swine ventricular fibrillation model.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: