Physiology of Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy

Pulsatile Pressure Delivery of Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices Is Markedly Reduced Relative to Heart Failure Patients

Although continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) provide an augmentation in systemic perfusion, there is a scarcity of in vivo data regarding systemic pulsatility on support. Patients supported on CF-LVAD therapy (n = 71) who underwent combined left/right catheterization ramp study were included. Aortic pulsatility was defined by the pulsatile power index (PPI), which was also calculated in a cohort of high-output heart failure (HOHF, n = 66) and standard HF cohort (n = 44). PPI was drastically lower in CF-LVAD-supported patients with median PPI of 0.006 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.002-0.012) compared with PPI in the HF population at 0.09 (IQR, 0.06-0.17) or HOHF population at 0.25 (IQR, 0.13-0.37; p < 0.0001 among groups). With speed augmentation during ramp, PPI values fell quickly in patients with higher PPI at baseline. PPI correlated poorly with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in all groups. In CF-LVAD patients, there was a stronger correlation with LV dP/dt (r = 0.41; p = 0.001) than LVEF (r = 0.21; p = 0.08; pint < 0.001). CF-LVAD support is associated with a dramatic reduction in arterial pulsatility as measured by PPI relative to HOHF and HF cohorts and decreases with speed. Further work is needed to determine the applicability to the next generation of device therapy.

Left ventricular assist devices: A historical perspective at the intersection of medicine and engineering

Over the last half-century, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology has progressed from conceptual therapy for failed cardiopulmonary bypass weaning to an accepted destination therapy for advanced heart failure. The history of LVAD engineering is defined by an initial development phase, which demonstrated the feasibility of such an approach, to the more recent three major generations of commercial devices. In this review, we explore the engineering challenges of LVADs, how they were addressed over time, and the clinical outcomes that resulted from each major technological development. The first generation of commercial LVADs were pulsatile devices, which lacked the appropriate durability due to their number of moving components and hemocompatibility. The second generation of LVADs was defined by replacement of complex, pulsatile pumps with primarily axial, continuous-flow systems with an impeller in the blood passageway. These devices experienced significant commercial success, but the presence of excessive trauma to the blood and in-situ bearing resulted in an unacceptable burden of adverse events. Third generation centrifugal-flow pumps use magnetically suspended rotors within the pump chamber. Superior outcomes with this newest generation of devices have been observed, particularly with respect to hemocompatibility-related adverse events including pump thrombosis, with fully magnetically levitated devices. The future of LVAD engineering includes wireless charging foregoing percutaneous drivelines and more advanced pump control mechanisms, including synchronization of the pump flow with the native cardiac cycle, and varying pump output based on degree of physical exertion using sensor or advanced device-level data triggers.