Debate

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The feasibility and benefits of creating adequate pulsatility with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have long been debated. This review discusses recent technical and clinical findings to answer whether such intervention should be implemented in the standard patient management. RECENT FINDINGS: Only a limited amount of pulsatility can be generated by periodic speed steps, both considerably smaller in flow increase and in pace rate than the natural circulation. Organ systems are not impeded in their normal function and even not in recovery by a continuous flow. Known problems such as gastrointestinal bleeding are not necessarily due to pulsatility per se, or not important for therapeutic progress, such as minor modifications of the arterial walls. SUMMARY: The speculative benefits of augmented pulsatility with continuous flow LVADs could be overrated and are still incompletely evaluated. Potential risks that might arise from this strategy should be carefully weighed before implementing extensive pulsatility as standard patient management.