Key result
The co-pulse mode of the BJUT-II VAD achieved the highest blood perfusion (775 ml/min vs 153 ml/min for constant speed) and highest cycle-averaged wall shear stress (42.6 Pa vs 18.1 Pa).
Why the study?
Do different support modes of the BJUT-II VAD affect coronary artery hemodynamics in a patient-specific computational model?
Population
Patient-specific left coronary arterial geometric model reconstructed based on computed tomography (CT) data
Comparison
BJUT-II VAD under 'co-pulse mode' or 'counter… vs BJUT-II VAD under 'constant speed mode'
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Co-pulse mode may optimize coronary hemodynamics in models; hypothesis-generating and requires in vivo validation before clinical consideration.
Do different support modes of the BJUT-II VAD affect coronary artery hemodynamics in a patient-specific computational model?
Absolute Event Rate: 775% vs 153%
Computational simulations suggest that the co-pulse mode of the BJUT-II VAD maximizes coronary perfusion and average wall shear stress compared to constant speed and counter pulse modes.
Zhang et al. (2014) studied Coronary hemodynamics during ventricular assist device support (n=1). Co-pulse mode of BJUT-II VAD vs. Constant speed mode and counter pulse mode was evaluated on Blood perfusion. The co-pulse mode of the BJUT-II VAD achieved the highest blood perfusion (775 ml/min vs 153 ml/min for constant speed) and highest cycle-averaged wall shear stress (42.6 Pa vs 18.1 Pa).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: