It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The previously more frequently implanted pulsatile blood pumps (PBPs) showed higher recovery rates than the currently preferred rotary blood pumps (RBPs), with unclear causality. The aim of this study was to comparatively assess the capability of PBPs and RPBs to unload the left ventricle and maintain cardiac energetics as a possible implication for recovery. An RBP and a heartbeat synchronized PBP were alternately connected to isolated porcine hearts. Rotational speed of RBPs was set to different support levels. For PBP support, the start of ejection was phased to different points during the cardiac cycle, prescribed as percentage delays from 0% to 90%. Cardiac efficiency, quantified by the ratio of external work over myocardial oxygen consumption, was determined. For RBP support, higher degrees of RBP support correlated with lower left atrial pressures (LAP) and lower cardiac efficiency (r = 0.91 ± 0.12). In contrast, depending on the phase delay of a PBP, LAP and cardiac efficiency exhibited a sinusoidal relationship with the LAP minimum at 90% and efficiency maximum at 60%. Phasing of a PBP offers the possibility to maintain a high cardiac efficiency and simultaneously unload the ventricle. These results warrant future studies investigating whether optimized cardiac energetics promotes functional recovery with LVAD therapy.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Pediatric Heart Center, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Children’s Research Center, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Biofluid Mechanics Laboratory, Institute for Imaging Science and Computational Modelling in Cardiovascular Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
2 Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Pediatric Heart Center, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Children’s Research Center, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
3 Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria
4 Division of Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland