In vitro comparison of support capabilities of intra-aortic balloon pump and Impella 2.5 left percutaneous

S. Schampaert, M. Veer, van 't, F.N. Vosse, van de, N.H.J. Pijls, B.A.J.M. Mol, de, M.C.M. Rutten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Impella 2.5 left percutaneous (LP), a relatively new transvalvular assist device, challenges the position of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), which has a long record in supporting patients after myocardial infarction and cardiac surgery. However, while more costly and more demanding in management, the advantages of the Impella 2.5 LP are yet to be established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of the 40 cc IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP operating at 47 000 rpm in vitro, and compare their circulatory support capabilities in terms of cardiac output, coronary flow, cardiac stroke work, and arterial blood pressure. Clinical scenarios of cardiogenic preshock and cardiogenic shock (CS), with blood pressure depression, lowered cardiac output, and constant heart rate of 80 bpm, were modeled in a model-controlled mock circulation, featuring a systemic, pulmonary, and coronary vascular bed. The ventricles, represented by servomotor-operated piston pumps, included the Frank–Starling mechanism. The systemic circulation was modeled with a flexible tube having close-to-human aortic dimensions and compliance properties. Proximally, it featured a branch mimicking the brachiocephalic arteries and a physiological correct coronary flow model. The rest of the systemic and pulmonary impedance was modeled by four-element Windkessel models. In this system, the enhancement of coronary flow and blood pressure was tested with both support systems under healthy and pathological conditions. Hemodynamic differences between the IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP were small. In our laboratory model, both systems approximately yielded a 10% cardiac output increase and a 10% coronary flow increase. However, since the Impella 2.5 LP provided significantly better left ventricular unloading, the circulatory support capabilities were slightly in favor of the Impella 2.5 LP. On the other hand, pulsatility was enhanced with the IABP and lowered with the Impella 2.5 LP. The support capabilities of both the IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP strongly depended on the simulated hemodynamic conditions. Maximum hemodynamic benefits were achieved when mechanical circulatory support was applied on a simulated scenario of deep CS.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)893-901
Number of pages9
JournalArtificial Organs
Volume35
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Balloons
Cardiac Output
Cardiogenic Shock
Hemodynamics
Pumps
Blood pressure
Blood Pressure
Lung
Electric Impedance
Thoracic Surgery
Compliance
Blood Vessels
Arterial Pressure
Arteries
Heart Rate
Reciprocating pumps
Servomotors
Stroke
Myocardial Infarction
Equipment and Supplies

Cite this

@article{636f0436d03b461b97747d5339f22b02,
title = "In vitro comparison of support capabilities of intra-aortic balloon pump and Impella 2.5 left percutaneous",
abstract = "The Impella 2.5 left percutaneous (LP), a relatively new transvalvular assist device, challenges the position of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), which has a long record in supporting patients after myocardial infarction and cardiac surgery. However, while more costly and more demanding in management, the advantages of the Impella 2.5 LP are yet to be established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of the 40 cc IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP operating at 47 000 rpm in vitro, and compare their circulatory support capabilities in terms of cardiac output, coronary flow, cardiac stroke work, and arterial blood pressure. Clinical scenarios of cardiogenic preshock and cardiogenic shock (CS), with blood pressure depression, lowered cardiac output, and constant heart rate of 80 bpm, were modeled in a model-controlled mock circulation, featuring a systemic, pulmonary, and coronary vascular bed. The ventricles, represented by servomotor-operated piston pumps, included the Frank–Starling mechanism. The systemic circulation was modeled with a flexible tube having close-to-human aortic dimensions and compliance properties. Proximally, it featured a branch mimicking the brachiocephalic arteries and a physiological correct coronary flow model. The rest of the systemic and pulmonary impedance was modeled by four-element Windkessel models. In this system, the enhancement of coronary flow and blood pressure was tested with both support systems under healthy and pathological conditions. Hemodynamic differences between the IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP were small. In our laboratory model, both systems approximately yielded a 10{\%} cardiac output increase and a 10{\%} coronary flow increase. However, since the Impella 2.5 LP provided significantly better left ventricular unloading, the circulatory support capabilities were slightly in favor of the Impella 2.5 LP. On the other hand, pulsatility was enhanced with the IABP and lowered with the Impella 2.5 LP. The support capabilities of both the IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP strongly depended on the simulated hemodynamic conditions. Maximum hemodynamic benefits were achieved when mechanical circulatory support was applied on a simulated scenario of deep CS.",
author = "S. Schampaert and {Veer, van 't}, M. and {Vosse, van de}, F.N. and N.H.J. Pijls and {Mol, de}, B.A.J.M. and M.C.M. Rutten",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01286.x",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "893--901",
journal = "Artificial Organs",
issn = "0160-564X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

In vitro comparison of support capabilities of intra-aortic balloon pump and Impella 2.5 left percutaneous. / Schampaert, S.; Veer, van 't, M.; Vosse, van de, F.N.; Pijls, N.H.J.; Mol, de, B.A.J.M.; Rutten, M.C.M.

In: Artificial Organs, Vol. 35, No. 9, 2011, p. 893-901.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - In vitro comparison of support capabilities of intra-aortic balloon pump and Impella 2.5 left percutaneous

AU - Schampaert, S.

AU - Veer, van 't, M.

AU - Vosse, van de, F.N.

AU - Pijls, N.H.J.

AU - Mol, de, B.A.J.M.

AU - Rutten, M.C.M.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The Impella 2.5 left percutaneous (LP), a relatively new transvalvular assist device, challenges the position of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), which has a long record in supporting patients after myocardial infarction and cardiac surgery. However, while more costly and more demanding in management, the advantages of the Impella 2.5 LP are yet to be established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of the 40 cc IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP operating at 47 000 rpm in vitro, and compare their circulatory support capabilities in terms of cardiac output, coronary flow, cardiac stroke work, and arterial blood pressure. Clinical scenarios of cardiogenic preshock and cardiogenic shock (CS), with blood pressure depression, lowered cardiac output, and constant heart rate of 80 bpm, were modeled in a model-controlled mock circulation, featuring a systemic, pulmonary, and coronary vascular bed. The ventricles, represented by servomotor-operated piston pumps, included the Frank–Starling mechanism. The systemic circulation was modeled with a flexible tube having close-to-human aortic dimensions and compliance properties. Proximally, it featured a branch mimicking the brachiocephalic arteries and a physiological correct coronary flow model. The rest of the systemic and pulmonary impedance was modeled by four-element Windkessel models. In this system, the enhancement of coronary flow and blood pressure was tested with both support systems under healthy and pathological conditions. Hemodynamic differences between the IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP were small. In our laboratory model, both systems approximately yielded a 10% cardiac output increase and a 10% coronary flow increase. However, since the Impella 2.5 LP provided significantly better left ventricular unloading, the circulatory support capabilities were slightly in favor of the Impella 2.5 LP. On the other hand, pulsatility was enhanced with the IABP and lowered with the Impella 2.5 LP. The support capabilities of both the IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP strongly depended on the simulated hemodynamic conditions. Maximum hemodynamic benefits were achieved when mechanical circulatory support was applied on a simulated scenario of deep CS.

AB - The Impella 2.5 left percutaneous (LP), a relatively new transvalvular assist device, challenges the position of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), which has a long record in supporting patients after myocardial infarction and cardiac surgery. However, while more costly and more demanding in management, the advantages of the Impella 2.5 LP are yet to be established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of the 40 cc IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP operating at 47 000 rpm in vitro, and compare their circulatory support capabilities in terms of cardiac output, coronary flow, cardiac stroke work, and arterial blood pressure. Clinical scenarios of cardiogenic preshock and cardiogenic shock (CS), with blood pressure depression, lowered cardiac output, and constant heart rate of 80 bpm, were modeled in a model-controlled mock circulation, featuring a systemic, pulmonary, and coronary vascular bed. The ventricles, represented by servomotor-operated piston pumps, included the Frank–Starling mechanism. The systemic circulation was modeled with a flexible tube having close-to-human aortic dimensions and compliance properties. Proximally, it featured a branch mimicking the brachiocephalic arteries and a physiological correct coronary flow model. The rest of the systemic and pulmonary impedance was modeled by four-element Windkessel models. In this system, the enhancement of coronary flow and blood pressure was tested with both support systems under healthy and pathological conditions. Hemodynamic differences between the IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP were small. In our laboratory model, both systems approximately yielded a 10% cardiac output increase and a 10% coronary flow increase. However, since the Impella 2.5 LP provided significantly better left ventricular unloading, the circulatory support capabilities were slightly in favor of the Impella 2.5 LP. On the other hand, pulsatility was enhanced with the IABP and lowered with the Impella 2.5 LP. The support capabilities of both the IABP and the Impella 2.5 LP strongly depended on the simulated hemodynamic conditions. Maximum hemodynamic benefits were achieved when mechanical circulatory support was applied on a simulated scenario of deep CS.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01286.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01286.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 21819436

VL - 35

SP - 893

EP - 901

JO - Artificial Organs

JF - Artificial Organs

SN - 0160-564X

IS - 9

ER -