Key result
Pulsatile flow offers advantages over nonpulsatile flow for acute support, but mammals can adapt to nonpulsatile circulation for chronic support where pressure and flow are the major requirements.
Why the study?
Does nonpulsatile circulation sustain normal organ function compared to pulsatile circulation in mammals?
Does nonpulsatile circulation sustain normal organ function compared to pulsatile circulation in mammals?
Mammals can adapt to nonpulsatile circulation for chronic support, though pulsatile flow may offer physiological advantages in acute settings.
Nonpulsatile support may suffice chronically; leaves open need for trials clarifying acute pulsatile advantages.
Mammals seem to be able to adapt to nonpulsatile circulation. For chronic support, pressure and flow, not the presence of a pulse, are the major requirements to sustain normal organ function. Pulsatile flow, however, seems to offer advantages over nonpulsatile flow for acute support in maintaining lymphatic flow, decreasing systemic vascular resistance, improving peripheral and pulmonary capillary perfusion, and reversing shock. These advantages may not be seen with chronic support with adaptation to nonpulsatile flow. ASAIO Journal 1999; 45:119–122.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
C. KIMBLE JETT (1999) conducted a review in Nonpulsatile circulation. Nonpulsatile circulation vs. Pulsatile circulation was evaluated. Pulsatile flow offers advantages over nonpulsatile flow for acute support, but mammals can adapt to nonpulsatile circulation for chronic support where pressure and flow are the major requirements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: