Maglev titanium heart inside the chest of a live patient
newatlas.com
newatlas.com
Here is a paper that talks about it for LVADs, which are similar but different
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10047-022-01350-3
“ah they stitch it to this neat synthetic graft stuff therefore glue couldn’t/wouldn’t be used”: wrong.
No, this is different. You're reading a scholarly source and regurgitating it without knowing some of the tiny details or exceptions that would only be common knowledge to an actual practitioner in the field.
ChatGPT would be making up completely different things, such as claiming the artificial hearts use subspace fields to work.
Ironically, the main source of misinformation in this thread appears to be you.
Also, there's a long-term question of whether there are any processes within the body are keyed off of the heartbeat, because biological designs are often spaghetti and take full advantage of any random interaction and make it load-bearing.
I've heard it suggested that musicians keep time according to their heartbeat; I don't feel like I'm doing that when I'm playing music, but I'd be interested to see what a musician feels like after having this procedure.
I have absolutely no doubt that something in the body relies on a periodic heartbeat in some fashion, but it seems so far to not be anything particularly critical.
Yeah, it makes me wonder if would be possible to re-engineer some of this stuff to reduce the needless complexity and improve performance and reliability and service life. The problem is that there's so much spaghetti code that any change you make could have unintended consequences.
Make it with e-ink and attach a subcutaneous flexible PCB right below the pigmented layer so that the heart can communicate status in a visible way.
Also, CPR is administered primarily when breathing is not sensed. If the patient is already in the hospital, they will surely check basic stuff, like a huge scar on the chest.
Though it would be very interesting if the machine would artificially output a potential vector that makes it very apparent to EKG and similar devices that it is operating, but it is not an ordinary heart (e.g. doing a square wave). It would require minuscule energy.
> The pump can run at constant speed, producing continuous blood flow at a constant pressure, and in our early experiments we concentrated on testing this “pulseless” mode. But it’s easy to change its speed, and our later experiments proved that controlled speed changes could produce a wide range of flow and pressure characteristics. Running the pump first at high speed (sending out more blood) and then at low speed (sending out less) creates something resembling a biological heart’s pulse; rapidly alternating these two speeds creates something that looks like a normal heartbeat.
> We’re now working primarily in that pulsatile mode. Within cardiology, there’s an open debate about whether a pulse is necessary for good health… [0]
The ieee.org article has significantly more detail and is a fascinating read.
- [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/this-maglev-heart-could-keep-cardi...
Hearts have been beating for a very, very long time, and I'm sure other biological structures have taken advantage of that.
Pulsatile flow doesn't have such issues, so a Swedish company called Real Heart is making a TAH that pulses like a heart.
So far they've done successful tests with sheep and tons of testing of various blood parameters which look way better than traditional continuous-flow TAHs. Clinical trials on humans should be coming up relatively soon.
I hope they make it, and can improve it and make it smaller to fit children etc. It's pretty interesting technology.
Why are we not aiming higher?
From the outside, it looks like a race between figuring out the biocompatibility and power issues for total artificial hearts vs. figuring out the immunological issues for xenografts (pig hearts, mostly).
If I had to put money on it, I’d bet that the xenografts win. It doesn’t seem like we’ve made huge strides toward solving the power and durability requirements of total artificial hearts, while immunology advances are happening rapidly. Exciting times, nonetheless.
Amazing times indeed, we are seeing xenografts and artificial organs in use.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2023/mini-hearts-dish-big-win...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25329-5
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/03/building-heart-one...
Your best bet would probably be in advocating for the pigs to be engineered to prevent cortical development, ensuring they don’t become anything beyond twitching, unconscious organ bags. In many ways I think people would find this more disturbing, though.
It sounds high even for India. About 40% of Indians are vegetarian, a third if we exclude those who eat eggs [1]. The part of the country where vegetarianism is most rampant, the North, is also the highest dairy-consuming part of the country [2].
In any case, while medical veganism is something to think about, it's not worth prioritising until after we have reliable artificial organs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#India
[2] https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/there-is-a-scientific...
Which you should not, since eating eggs does not make a person a non-vegetarian. The only thing that makes a person a vegetarian is not eating animal flesh. Eggs and dairy are fair game; it's only vegans who push it farther and forbid those. This is basic stuff; has someone been trying to redefine "vegetarianism" recently?
> This is basic stuff; has someone been trying to redefine "vegetarianism" recently?
Oddly enough, when the word was introduced to popular use in English (though note that similar _concepts_ predated it), it usually meant something closer to what ‘vegan’ does today. The current use of the word is a 20th century thing. Words get redefined, all the time; that’s how languages work. Deal with it. In this case, the word has generally tended to be defined in _more_ permissive terms, not less.
That's probably not a good move if we want to achieve a pragmatic reduction in meat consumption to help reduce related CO2 emissions. A smaller step is a much easier sell.
Something a bacon lover never said ever . . .
I was raised as a pork lover but did stop as a teenager on my own a couple years before I quit beef. I think that did have a positive effect on my young health in the interim, but eventually everything was replaced by more comprehensive plant-based alternatives.
Still love the smell of bacon though.
We've been aiming higher explicitly for at 70+ years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_heart). I've been following it for 50. Artificial hearts were 5 years away since at least 1972 or so when I first learned about this field. The problems (mechanical, surgical, electrical, biological) are endless and it's an astoundingly hostile environment for machinery. We have enough problems getting pacemakers to work without severe problems.
I think the 6-million-dollar man thing is a weird goal.
Better to regrow, implant, perhaps supplement.
Full-on replacement isn’t just a “when” but a “why” and a “how do you expect to do better than evolution”.
Titanium is cool! That doesn’t make it better than muscle.
Go for a run if you want a better heart
Because our goal is aligned with our actual problem (survival of individual human beings), as opposed to the merely partially-aligned goal of "statistical survival up to reproduction age"? Natural evolution is an unaligned AI, in a sense: powerful, but not helpful.
Eventually humanity will defeat this problem, and we won't even need computational parity with natural evolution to do that. Most of that computation is wasted.
And the computation has to be done even in simulation. Just better to shortcut the suffering.
I think bioengineering is a good goal. I think cyborgs are a bad goal.
If our bodies were peak, we wouldn't need to use hundred(s) of hours of exercise per year to force muscular and cardiovascular improvements, it would just happen. Muscles wouldn't shrink away in an aggressive attempt to conserve calories, especially not regardless of BMI.
Then what would be the point of living if you had nothing to do but wait for updates? How boring.
Even a self-improving machine is spending time, not exercising but “designing a better version of itself”. Which is an “exercise”.
I hate to say this but I think your comment misunderstands the beauty of life and the challenge behind the struggle to improve. It is a blessed journey.
I personally think being fallable and not having full control of my destiny, while scary, is a feature and not a bug. It seems to make existence exciting.
Some people manage to do both at the same time.
> Which is an “exercise”.
You're arguing against a strawman. I'm not complaining about working for self-improvement, I'm complaining about how muscles shrink away so rapidly when not in use. Look at what happens when people are bedridden for a few weeks, that is not good design!
And I'm not saying people should automatically look like body builders, I'm saying the baseline should be a healthy level.
Interestingly, when you undergo a period of strength training, you see an increase in the number of myonuclei within your muscle fibres.
And this increase is permanent.
[1] https://foreverfitscience.com/exercise-science/is-muscle-mem...
I had a child, took a year off lifting, or basically doing anything but walking, I didn't lose much mass or strength and it hasn't taken me long to get back where I was, I'm pretty happy with the current design, maybe you should train more so you actually have some muscle in case you do need to spend a few weeks in bed?
The main issue here is the combination of biological tissue/conditions and artificial ones without either giving out.
It was developed with long-term implantation in mind. You can read about it here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/...
The use of inductive power transfer meant that no transdermal cabling was needed.
Sadly, it sounds like for various reasons the dream was not achievable at the time.
It was not designed with long term implantation in mind.
It was designed to get funding and keep the company alive. The device itself was very crude, not statenof the art at the time, and much of it was hand dip-molded with basic materials. It was a hand made research device that in all reality would have never been expected to be reliable and long lasting.
The Bivacor, Heartmate III, these things are in a different class.
https://abc13.com/post/artificial-heart-procedure-performed-...
>Why are we not aiming higher?
The final trajectory is not fully known but it looks like they have been preparing for a moon shot from the beginning anyway.
You've got to get there from here.
The higher the integrity, the more you under-promise and over-deliver :)
not my downvote btw, corrective upvote to compensate
https://spectrum.ieee.org/this-maglev-heart-could-keep-cardi...
That's some high-stakes software programming!
Passively-stable magnetic levitation is possible with diamagnetic materials (notably including superconductors), but those probably don't meet the requirements of this project.
- "This positional control system works as follows: Tiny contactless sensors send out magnetic fields that interact with the rotor, determining its exact location many times per second. If the rotor is moving in one direction or another, the control system puts electrical energy into electromagnetic coils within several actuators, causing them to cancel out that movement."
> Patients will wear a 4-kg external controller pack that contains two rechargeable batteries (providing about 5 hours of operation each), although they can also plug in directly to a power outlet.
Like, the stress of finding a free outlet when I'm on 7% charge is already bad for my heart
Does anyone know if there's been research to extract energy from the blood directly?
Take a moment to consider that your entire body runs on an energy budget of only around 100 watts, of which your brain only uses a measly 20 watts.
The section on constant flow vs. variable flow to simulate a heartbeat got me thinking about how weird it would feel to have no pulse, or what it’d be like to experience a moment of excitement/adrenaline without the accompanied pounding in my chest.
In even class III (implantable and safety critical meaning the patient is harmed or killed if they fail) medical devices are only required to be single fault tolerant.
Not true. Proof: Boeing 737MAX MCAS system, which relies on only one sensor, and when that sensor ices up, causes the aircraft to fly into the ground, killing many hundreds of people in two separate incidents. This design was fully approved by the FAA.
The deal there was the MCAS system was originally designed such that it was thought to be not safety critical. It relied on another sensor that was also non safety critical in its other uses. But then over time Boeing made changes that made it safety critical, and rather than upgrade the hardware they put some footnotes in the manual and expected pilots to do things to avert disaster, but then they didnt properly train pilots to those changes to their duties.
It was a comedy of errors on many levels.
None of it changes my parent comment.
Here's an article from 2002 about this type of pump: http://www.mech.ibaraki.ac.jp/~ismb8/pocpdf/0001.pdf
Why is this? What are the downsides of just keeping this artificial heart forever? Do the components somehow wear out so fast that it makes more sense to have another surgery with a real heart, or is it something with the recharge requirements, or something else?
Impellers are particularly bad. Alternatives that use flexible membranes are better but still not perfect. Abiomed and Ventriflo both had pumps that use a flexible membrane. Abiomed had the first TAH (total artificial heart) to be implanted.
There are also other problems with blood pumps, such as stasis areas where blood can stagnate causing issues like thrombosis. These can be caused by valves or other issues in the flow path.
People on blood pumps need blood thinners and anticoagulants which can cause their own problems long term.
Source: 15 years of working on blood pumps.
Edit: sorry, I realized you suggested almost this exact thing above; I just got excited and replied too fast.
— Segregationist, Isaac Asimov, 1967: <https://archive.org/details/Fantasy_Science_Fiction_v035n04_...>
The Abiocor, first implanted in July 2, 2001, does have a pulse.
But just for one… your arteries contain one-way valves and smaller pumps, to keep blood from pooling in your legs, or from failing to reach your head. These aren’t absolutely critical—children don’t die while standing on their heads—but I can’t imagine they’ll work quite as intended without pulses.
You can’t just swap the main pump on a massive hydraulic system for a different design, and not expect something to go wrong.
https://www.forbes.com.au/news/innovation/bivacor-implants-f...
There are very good reasons these artificial hearts are strictly temporary while waiting for a donor.
* (you can tell from the item IDs)