i-cor - benefits of pulsatility Better coronary perfusion

Jung et al.34 (2007) randomly allocated 13 Yorkshire pigs to two groups for pulsatile (twin pulse pump, n=7) versus non-pulsatile (biopump, n=6) VAD treatment after electrically induced ventricular fibrillation and investigated the flow in the left coronary artery. After 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120 min, they measured mean coronary flows of 0.77±0.3, 0.76±0.19, 0.95±0.23, 0.86±0.23, 1.00±0.24 and 0.95±0.17 ml/kg/min for pulsatile (50 bpm) support with 2 l/min (equating to 67±8 ml/kg/min). The flow measurements were always lower for the equivalent non-pulsatile support (equating to 70±9 ml/kg/min). Support at 20, 40 and 60 min had to be increased to 84±17, 87±24 and 85±18 ml/kg/min (p<0.05) and to 79±17, 75±13 and 73±13 ml/min/kg (not significant) at 80, 100 and 120 min to achieve the same coronary flow. During non-pulsatile perfusion, a flow that was 25%–28% higher was required to achieve the same coronary perfusion as for pulsatile perfusion.