Hemodynamic and Pressure–Volume Responses to Continuous and Pulsatile Ventricular Assist in an Adult Mock Circulation

This study investigated the hemodynamic and left ventricular (LV) pressure–volume loop responses to continuous versus pulsatile assist techniques at 50% and 100% bypass flow rates during simulated ventricular pathophysiologic states (normal, failing, recovery) with Starling response behavior in an adult mock circulation. The rationale for this approach was the desire to conduct a preliminary investigation in a well controlled environment that cannot be as easily produced in an animal model or clinical setting. Continuous and pulsatile flow ventricular assist devices (VADs) were connected to ventricular apical and aortic root return cannulae. The mock circulation was instrumented with a pressure–volume conductance catheter for simultaneous measurement of aortic root pressure and LV pressure and volume; a left atrial pressure catheter; a distal aortic pressure catheter; and aortic root, aortic distal, VAD output, and coronary flow probes. Filling pressures (mean left atrial and LV end diastolic) were reduced with each assist technique; continuous assist reduced filling pressures by 50% more than pulsatile. This reduction, however, was at the expense of a higher mean distal aortic pressure and lower diastolic to systolic coronary artery flow ratio. At full bypass flow (100%) for both assist devices, there was a pronounced effect on hemodynamic parameters, whereas the lesser bypass flow (50%) had only a slight influence. Hemodynamic responses to continuous and pulsatile assist during simulated heart failure differed from normal and recovery states. These findings suggest the potential for differences in endocardial perfusion between assist techniques that may warrant further investigation in an in vivo model, the need for controlling the amount of bypass flow, and the importance in considering the choice of in vivo model.