Do you have any idea if there have ever been studies on the effect of constant flow vs peristaltic flow on the circulatory system? I wonder if the constant flow creates or solves any issues.
Do you have any idea if there have ever been studies on the effect of constant flow vs peristaltic flow on the circulatory system? I wonder if the constant flow creates or solves any issues.
I don't know the current state of the art, but there are definitely studies (the keyword is "pulsatile"). For example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250555/
For comparison, here's a picture of some LVADs. The one I've seen in person (after it had been taken back out!) is the one on the far left. Flow issues aside, I can imagine the smaller ones are easier on the patient in general, just from the perspective of surgery trauma.
http://reliantheart.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/VAD_Size_...
Current popular models are continuous flow rotors that are much smaller (enabling their use in almost anyone) and are non-pulsatile.
However, there's been a big push to move towards pulsatile devices. This is mostly driven by mechanobiolgy studies that show that there is a difference in the cellular programs of cells that are exposed to a continuous shear force versus a pulsatile shear force. Accordingly, to more closely replicate the natural physiology of the heart, there has been a big push towards using pulsatile devices.
The audible heartbeat is from the heart sliding in the pericardium sac when it beats, many people lose the audible heartbeat after having heart surgery when the pericardium sac has to be cut or removed completely e.g. if someone is having a bypass surgery.
Thanks for the great explanations!