Cargando…
The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk
The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a treatment method for heart failure patients has been steadily increasing; however, pathological studies showed presence of thrombi around the HeartWare ventricular assist device inflow cannula (IC) in more than 95% of patients after device expl...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7496759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32302423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aor.13705 |
_version_ | 1783583169439596544 |
---|---|
author | Ghodrati, Mojgan Maurer, Alexander Schlöglhofer, Thomas Khienwad, Thananya Zimpfer, Daniel Beitzke, Dietrich Zonta, Francesco Moscato, Francesco Schima, Heinrich Aigner, Philipp |
author_facet | Ghodrati, Mojgan Maurer, Alexander Schlöglhofer, Thomas Khienwad, Thananya Zimpfer, Daniel Beitzke, Dietrich Zonta, Francesco Moscato, Francesco Schima, Heinrich Aigner, Philipp |
author_sort | Ghodrati, Mojgan |
collection | PubMed |
description | The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a treatment method for heart failure patients has been steadily increasing; however, pathological studies showed presence of thrombi around the HeartWare ventricular assist device inflow cannula (IC) in more than 95% of patients after device explantation. Flow fields around the IC might trigger thrombus formation and require further investigation. In this study flow dynamics parameters were evaluated for different patient geometries using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Left ventricular (LV) models of two LVAD patients were obtained from CT scans. The LV volumes of Patient 1 (P1) and Patient 2 (P2) were 264 and 114 cm(3) with an IC angle of 20° and 9° from the mitral‐IC tip axis at the coronal plane. The IC insertion site at the apex was central for P1, whereas it was lateral for P2. Transient CFD simulations were performed over 9 cardiac cycles. The wedge area was defined from the cannula tip to the wall of the LV apex. Mean velocity magnitude and blood stagnation region (volume with mean velocity <5 mm/s) as well as the wall shear stress (WSS) at the IC surface were calculated. Cardiac support resulted in a flow mainly crossing the ventricle from the mitral valve to the LVAD cannula for P2, while the main inflow jet deviated toward the septal wall in P1. Lower WSS at the IC surface and consequently larger stagnation volumes were observed for P2 (P1: 0.17, P2: 0.77 cm(3)). Flow fields around an LVAD cannula can be influenced by many parameters such as LV size, IC angle, and implantation site. Careful consideration of influencing parameters is essential to get reliable evaluations of the apical flow field and its connection to apical thrombus formation. Higher blood washout and lower stagnation were observed for a central implantation of the IC at the apex. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7496759 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74967592020-09-25 The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk Ghodrati, Mojgan Maurer, Alexander Schlöglhofer, Thomas Khienwad, Thananya Zimpfer, Daniel Beitzke, Dietrich Zonta, Francesco Moscato, Francesco Schima, Heinrich Aigner, Philipp Artif Organs Main Text Articles The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a treatment method for heart failure patients has been steadily increasing; however, pathological studies showed presence of thrombi around the HeartWare ventricular assist device inflow cannula (IC) in more than 95% of patients after device explantation. Flow fields around the IC might trigger thrombus formation and require further investigation. In this study flow dynamics parameters were evaluated for different patient geometries using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Left ventricular (LV) models of two LVAD patients were obtained from CT scans. The LV volumes of Patient 1 (P1) and Patient 2 (P2) were 264 and 114 cm(3) with an IC angle of 20° and 9° from the mitral‐IC tip axis at the coronal plane. The IC insertion site at the apex was central for P1, whereas it was lateral for P2. Transient CFD simulations were performed over 9 cardiac cycles. The wedge area was defined from the cannula tip to the wall of the LV apex. Mean velocity magnitude and blood stagnation region (volume with mean velocity <5 mm/s) as well as the wall shear stress (WSS) at the IC surface were calculated. Cardiac support resulted in a flow mainly crossing the ventricle from the mitral valve to the LVAD cannula for P2, while the main inflow jet deviated toward the septal wall in P1. Lower WSS at the IC surface and consequently larger stagnation volumes were observed for P2 (P1: 0.17, P2: 0.77 cm(3)). Flow fields around an LVAD cannula can be influenced by many parameters such as LV size, IC angle, and implantation site. Careful consideration of influencing parameters is essential to get reliable evaluations of the apical flow field and its connection to apical thrombus formation. Higher blood washout and lower stagnation were observed for a central implantation of the IC at the apex. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-05-06 2020-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7496759/ /pubmed/32302423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aor.13705 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Main Text Articles Ghodrati, Mojgan Maurer, Alexander Schlöglhofer, Thomas Khienwad, Thananya Zimpfer, Daniel Beitzke, Dietrich Zonta, Francesco Moscato, Francesco Schima, Heinrich Aigner, Philipp The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk |
title | The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk |
title_full | The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk |
title_fullStr | The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk |
title_full_unstemmed | The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk |
title_short | The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk |
title_sort | influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk |
topic | Main Text Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7496759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32302423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aor.13705 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ghodratimojgan theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT maureralexander theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT schloglhoferthomas theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT khienwadthananya theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT zimpferdaniel theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT beitzkedietrich theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT zontafrancesco theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT moscatofrancesco theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT schimaheinrich theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT aignerphilipp theinfluenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT ghodratimojgan influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT maureralexander influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT schloglhoferthomas influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT khienwadthananya influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT zimpferdaniel influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT beitzkedietrich influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT zontafrancesco influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT moscatofrancesco influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT schimaheinrich influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk AT aignerphilipp influenceofleftventricularassistdeviceinflowcannulapositiononthrombosisrisk |