Premium
Evaluation and Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance of Three ECLS Systems in a Simulated Adult Cardiogenic Shock Model
Author(s) -
Ündar Akif,
Wang Shigang,
Moroi Morgan,
Kunselman Allen R.,
Brehm Christoph E.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
artificial organs
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.684
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1525-1594
pISSN - 0160-564X
DOI - 10.1111/aor.13126
Subject(s) - oxygenator , pulsatile flow , hemodynamics , cardiogenic shock , centrifugal pump , biomedical engineering , medicine , hematocrit , anesthesia , materials science , cardiology , mechanics , cardiopulmonary bypass , physics , impeller , myocardial infarction
The objective of this study was to evaluate three commercially available ECLS systems with rotary pumps in terms of circuit pressure, pressure drop, perfusion modes, and hemodynamic energy transmission in a simulated adult cardiogenic shock model. One circuit consisted of a Cardiohelp system, which included a Cardiohelp console and HLS Module Advanced 7.0 tubing set with integrated centrifugal pump and oxygenator. The alternative circuit was composed of a Quadrox‐D Adult oxygenator connected in series with either an i‐cor diagonal pump and console or a Rotaflow centrifugal pump and console. The circuit was primed with lactated Ringer's solution and packed red blood cells (hematocrit 40%). The trials were conducted at flow rates of 1‐5 L/min with pseudo patient pressures of 60 mm Hg and 80 mm Hg. Pulsatile flow was tested when using the i‐cor system. Mean pre‐oxygenator pressure and pressure drop across ECLS circuit (including oxygenator and arterial tubing) were lower when using the Cardiohelp system as compared to the Rotaflow and i‐cor systems ( P < 0.01). The i‐cor system was able to deliver more hemodynamic energy to the pseudo patient because of its ability to produce pulsatile flow ( P < 0.01). The Cardiohelp HLS Module Advanced 7.0 integrated oxygenator had a lower resistance than the Quadrox‐D oxygenator. Although the compact Cardiohelp system had a better hemodynamic performance when compared to Rotaflow and i‐cor systems, the pulsatile flow of the i‐cor system delivered more hemodynamic energy to the pseudo patient. This may render more physiological benefits in high‐risk patients on ECLS.