Key result
The Native Heart Load Control System in counter-pulse mode significantly enhanced coronary flow compared to continuous support mode in an acute ischemic heart failure model (121.0% vs 113.5%, P<0.05).
Why the study?
Does a continuous-flow LVAD with a cardiac beat synchronizing system (counter-pulse mode) improve coronary flow in a goat model of acute ischemic heart failure?
Does a continuous-flow LVAD with a cardiac beat synchronizing system (counter-pulse mode) improve coronary flow in a goat model of acute ischemic heart failure?
In a goat model of acute ischemic heart failure, a continuous-flow LVAD synchronized to the cardiac cycle in counter-pulse mode significantly increased coronary flow and decreased left ventricular end-diastolic pressure compared to continuous support.
Supports testing synchronized counter-pulse LVAD modes for coronary perfusion in ischemic HF; leaves open clinical translation pending human studies.
BACKGROUND: A novel control system for the EVAHEART left ventricular assist device (LVAD), known as the Native Heart Load Control System (NHLCS), can change the device's rotational speed (RS) in synchrony with the heartbeat. The system enhanced coronary flow (CoF) with the counter-pulse mode in normal goats' hearts, so we examined the change in CoF in goats with acute ischemic heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 14 goats (56.1±6.9kg) with acute ischemic HF induced by coronary microsphere embolization. We installed EVAHEART and ran the device in 4 modes [continuous support, circuit-clamp, counter-pulse (raise RS in diastole), and co-pulse (raise RS in systole)] with 50% or 100% bypass in each mode. In comparison with the circuit-clamp mode, CoF was 121.0±14.1% in the counter-pulse mode and 102.9±7.9% in the co-pulse mode, whereas it was 113.5±10.6% in the continuous mode, with 100% bypass (P<0.05). The same difference was confirmed with 50% bypass. The results indicated that a LVAD in an acute ischemic heart enhanced CoF, and that CoF was greater in the counter-pulse mode and smaller in the co-pulse mode relative to the continuous mode. CONCLUSIONS: By using NHLCS to change CoF, recovery of native heart function with a LVAD has a better prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Umeki et al. (2012) studied Acute ischemic heart failure (n=14). Native Heart Load Control System (NHLCS) counter-pulse mode vs. Continuous support mode was evaluated on Coronary flow (CoF) as a percentage of circuit-clamp mode at 100% bypass (p=<0.05). The Native Heart Load Control System in counter-pulse mode significantly enhanced coronary flow compared to continuous support mode in an acute ischemic heart failure model (121.0% vs 113.5%, P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: