The Prince Charles Hospital, Critical Care Research Group, Chermside, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Artif Organs. 2010 Sep;34(9):714-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2010.01093.x.
The ventricular assist device inflow cannulation site is the primary interface between the device and the patient. Connecting these cannulae to either atria or ventricles induces major changes in flow dynamics; however, there are little data available on precise quantification of these changes. The objective of this investigation was to quantify the difference in ventricular/vascular hemodynamics during a range of left heart failure conditions with either atrial (AC) or ventricular (VC) inflow cannulation in a mock circulation loop with a rotary left VAD. Ventricular ejection fraction (EF), stroke work, and pump flow rates were found to be consistently lower with AC compared with VC over all simulated heart failure conditions. Adequate ventricular ejection remained with AC under low levels of mechanical support; however, the reduced EF in cases of severe heart failure may increase the risk of thromboembolic events. AC is therefore more suitable for class III, bridge to recovery patients, while VC is appropriate for class IV, bridge to transplant/destination patients.
心室辅助装置的流入插管部位是设备与患者之间的主要接口。将这些插管连接到心房或心室会引起血流动力学的重大变化;然而,关于这些变化的精确定量数据很少。本研究的目的是在带有旋转左心室辅助装置的模拟循环回路中,量化左心衰竭情况下使用心房(AC)或心室(VC)流入插管时心室/血管血液动力学的差异。在所有模拟心力衰竭情况下,与 VC 相比,AC 的心室射血分数(EF)、每搏功和泵流量始终较低。在较低水平的机械支持下,AC 仍能保持足够的心室射血;然而,严重心力衰竭时 EF 的降低可能会增加血栓栓塞事件的风险。因此,AC 更适合 III 类、恢复桥接患者,而 VC 适合 IV 类、移植/目的地桥接患者。