Key result
Pulsatile assist improved renal cortex blood flow compared to nonpulsatile assist in a swine model of cardiogenic shock, suggesting it is more effective for maintaining microcirculation.
Why the study?
Does pulsatile pump assist improve heart and kidney microcirculation compared to nonpulsatile assist or no assist in a swine model of cardiogenic shock?
Does pulsatile pump assist improve heart and kidney microcirculation compared to nonpulsatile assist or no assist in a swine model of cardiogenic shock?
Pulsatile mechanical circulatory support may be more effective than nonpulsatile support at preserving renal cortical microcirculation during cardiogenic shock.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Should not yet change MCS selection in shock; hypothesis-generating for pulsatile renal protection in animal models.
Nakata et al. (1996) studied Cardiogenic shock (n=18). Pulsatile pump assist vs. Nonpulsatile pump assist and no assist was evaluated on Left coronary artery flow, endocardial and epicardial regional flows, and renal cortex and medulla tissue blood flows. Pulsatile assist improved renal cortex blood flow compared to nonpulsatile assist in a swine model of cardiogenic shock, suggesting it is more effective for maintaining microcirculation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: