Pulsatile vs. continuous flow

Eric L. Wu, Matthias Kleinheyer, Akif Ündar

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Earlier left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were volume displacement pumps (VDPs) that delivered pulsatile flow. However, due to improved survival rates of rotary blood pumps (RBPs), they are now the preferred device. Originally, RBPs operated at a constant speed and therefore delivered flow continuously with an absent or diminished pulse. Although RBPs were an improvement to the previous VDPs, the delivery of continuous flow has led to secondary complications, such as vascular and aortic valve dysfunction and gastrointestinal bleeding. Therefore, research has been made toward pulsatile RBPs by rapidly modulating pump speed. However, deriving pulsatile flow with RBPs has not been without controversy. Issues of debate have included the quantification of an adequate pulse and the influence of blood trauma and power consumption when generating a pulse with a RBP. Meanwhile, the pulsatility controversy has also expanded to total artificial heart and extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) support. Nevertheless, commercial developments have been made toward combining the benefits of improved durability and survival rates of RBPs with a pulsing mechanism for mechanical circulatory support.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationMechanical Circulatory and Respiratory Support
PublisherElsevier Inc.
Pages379-406
Number of pages28
ISBN (Electronic)9780128104927
ISBN (Print)9780128104910
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Pumps
Blood
Pulse
Pulsatile Flow
Pulsatile flow
Membrane Oxygenators
Artificial Heart
Heart-Assist Devices
Oxygenators
Left ventricular assist devices
Artificial heart
Aortic Valve
Blood Vessels
Hemorrhage
Durability
Electric power utilization
Equipment and Supplies
Wounds and Injuries
Membranes
Research

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Engineering(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)

Cite this

Wu, E. L., Kleinheyer, M., & Ündar, A. (2018). Pulsatile vs. continuous flow. In Mechanical Circulatory and Respiratory Support (pp. 379-406). Elsevier Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-810491-0.00012-6
Wu, Eric L. ; Kleinheyer, Matthias ; Ündar, Akif. / Pulsatile vs. continuous flow. Mechanical Circulatory and Respiratory Support. Elsevier Inc., 2018. pp. 379-406
@inbook{9d7b7b21a711439689074f7d6ec9172f,
title = "Pulsatile vs. continuous flow",
abstract = "Earlier left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were volume displacement pumps (VDPs) that delivered pulsatile flow. However, due to improved survival rates of rotary blood pumps (RBPs), they are now the preferred device. Originally, RBPs operated at a constant speed and therefore delivered flow continuously with an absent or diminished pulse. Although RBPs were an improvement to the previous VDPs, the delivery of continuous flow has led to secondary complications, such as vascular and aortic valve dysfunction and gastrointestinal bleeding. Therefore, research has been made toward pulsatile RBPs by rapidly modulating pump speed. However, deriving pulsatile flow with RBPs has not been without controversy. Issues of debate have included the quantification of an adequate pulse and the influence of blood trauma and power consumption when generating a pulse with a RBP. Meanwhile, the pulsatility controversy has also expanded to total artificial heart and extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) support. Nevertheless, commercial developments have been made toward combining the benefits of improved durability and survival rates of RBPs with a pulsing mechanism for mechanical circulatory support.",
author = "Wu, {Eric L.} and Matthias Kleinheyer and Akif {\"U}ndar",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/B978-0-12-810491-0.00012-6",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780128104910",
pages = "379--406",
booktitle = "Mechanical Circulatory and Respiratory Support",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
address = "United States",

}

Wu, EL, Kleinheyer, M & Ündar, A 2018, Pulsatile vs. continuous flow. in Mechanical Circulatory and Respiratory Support. Elsevier Inc., pp. 379-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-810491-0.00012-6

Pulsatile vs. continuous flow. / Wu, Eric L.; Kleinheyer, Matthias; Ündar, Akif.

Mechanical Circulatory and Respiratory Support. Elsevier Inc., 2018. p. 379-406.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Pulsatile vs. continuous flow

AU - Wu, Eric L.

AU - Kleinheyer, Matthias

AU - Ündar, Akif

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Earlier left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were volume displacement pumps (VDPs) that delivered pulsatile flow. However, due to improved survival rates of rotary blood pumps (RBPs), they are now the preferred device. Originally, RBPs operated at a constant speed and therefore delivered flow continuously with an absent or diminished pulse. Although RBPs were an improvement to the previous VDPs, the delivery of continuous flow has led to secondary complications, such as vascular and aortic valve dysfunction and gastrointestinal bleeding. Therefore, research has been made toward pulsatile RBPs by rapidly modulating pump speed. However, deriving pulsatile flow with RBPs has not been without controversy. Issues of debate have included the quantification of an adequate pulse and the influence of blood trauma and power consumption when generating a pulse with a RBP. Meanwhile, the pulsatility controversy has also expanded to total artificial heart and extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) support. Nevertheless, commercial developments have been made toward combining the benefits of improved durability and survival rates of RBPs with a pulsing mechanism for mechanical circulatory support.

AB - Earlier left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were volume displacement pumps (VDPs) that delivered pulsatile flow. However, due to improved survival rates of rotary blood pumps (RBPs), they are now the preferred device. Originally, RBPs operated at a constant speed and therefore delivered flow continuously with an absent or diminished pulse. Although RBPs were an improvement to the previous VDPs, the delivery of continuous flow has led to secondary complications, such as vascular and aortic valve dysfunction and gastrointestinal bleeding. Therefore, research has been made toward pulsatile RBPs by rapidly modulating pump speed. However, deriving pulsatile flow with RBPs has not been without controversy. Issues of debate have included the quantification of an adequate pulse and the influence of blood trauma and power consumption when generating a pulse with a RBP. Meanwhile, the pulsatility controversy has also expanded to total artificial heart and extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) support. Nevertheless, commercial developments have been made toward combining the benefits of improved durability and survival rates of RBPs with a pulsing mechanism for mechanical circulatory support.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052838327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052838327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/B978-0-12-810491-0.00012-6

DO - 10.1016/B978-0-12-810491-0.00012-6

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85052838327

SN - 9780128104910

SP - 379

EP - 406

BT - Mechanical Circulatory and Respiratory Support

PB - Elsevier Inc.

ER -

Wu EL, Kleinheyer M, Ündar A. Pulsatile vs. continuous flow. In Mechanical Circulatory and Respiratory Support. Elsevier Inc. 2018. p. 379-406 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-810491-0.00012-6