ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
In silico analysis of pressure distribution and flow profiles across an experimental left ventricular assist device accessory.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesImplantation of left ventricular assist devices conventionally requires a sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass. An experimental accessory was designed to redirect the device's outflow graft through the left ventricle into the ascending aorta. This design allows for implantation via left thoracotomy only but resulted in significant pressure loss both in vitro and in vivo. We evaluated the reasons for the pressure loss of the experimental accessory by quantifying pressure distribution and flow profiles using computational fluid dynamics simulation tools.
methodsA computational fluid dynamics model based on the accessory's geometry was used to simulate nominal blood flow through the model. Quantities of interest included pressure and flow velocity. Pressure differences between the pump inlet and outlet were calculated at different rotational speeds (4000, 5200, 6400 rpm) and pump flow rates (1, 5, 8.4 L/min). Results were compared with simulations of a generic left ventricular assist device to determine the accessory's impact.
resultsNatural pump characteristics were observed, as increased rotational speed caused an increase in pressure head with a constant flow rate. For all cases, a greater decrease in pressure head was seen between 5 and 8.4 L/min than between 1 and 5 L/min. Curvature intensity and channel bifurcation in the outflow were the main contributors to downstream pressure loss.
conclusionsThe next iteration of the left ventricular assist device accessory should focus on minimizing curvatures and avoiding bifurcations in the outflow. Further development may allow for less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation with negligible alterations in pump performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.