Advertisement

Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 807–818 | Cite as

Shear stress and blood trauma under constant and pulse-modulated speed CF-VAD operations: CFD analysis of the HVAD

  • Zengsheng Chen
  • Sofen K. Jena
  • Guruprasad A. Giridharan
  • Michael A. Sobieski
  • Steven C. Koenig
  • Mark S. Slaughter
  • Bartley P. Griffith
  • Zhongjun J. WuEmail author
Original Article
  • 188 Downloads

Abstract

Modulation of pump speed has been proposed and implemented clinically to improve vascular pulsatility in continuous flow ventricular assist device patient. The flow dynamics of the HVAD with a promising asynchronous pump speed modulation and its potential risk for device-induced blood trauma was investigated numerically. The boundary conditions at the pump inlet and outlet were defined using the pressure waveforms adapted from the experimentally recorded ventricular and arterial pressure waveforms in a large animal ischemic heart failure (IHF) model supported by the HVAD operated at constant and modulated pump speeds. Shear stress fields and hemolysis indices were derived from the simulated flow fields. The overall features of the computationally generated flow waveforms at simulated constant and pulse-modulated speed operations matched with those of the experimentally recorded flow waveforms. The simulations showed that the shear stress field and hemolysis index vary throughout the cardiac cycle under the constant speed operation, and also as a function of modulation profile under modulated speed operation. The computational model did not demonstrate any differences in the time average hemolysis index between constant and modulated pump speed operations, thereby predicting pulse-modulated speed operation may help to restore vascular pulsatility without any further increased risk of blood trauma.

Graphical abstract

The streamline inside the HVAD pump and the wall shear stress distribution on the impeller surface at six discrete time instants over one cardiac cycle under constant speed operation (3000 rpm) (a) and under pulse-modulated speed operation (b). c Computationally predicted flow rate waveform under pulse-modulated speed operation. d Computationally predicted time-varying HI generated by the HVAD pump under the two operation modes constant speed (dash line) and pulse-modulated speed (solid line). These figures indicate that the pulse-modulated speed operation may help to restore vascular pulsatility without any further increased risk of blood trauma.

Keywords

Continuous flow ventricular assist devices Speed pulse modulation Pulsatility Shear stress Blood trauma 

Notes

Funding

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (Grant Number: R01 HL124170).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, de Ferranti S, Després JP, Fullerton HJ, Howard VJ, Huffman MD, Judd SE, Kissela BM, Lackland DT, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Liu S, Mackey RH, Matchar DB, McGuire D, Mohler ER III, Moy CS, Muntner P, Mussolino ME, Nasir K, Neumar RW, Nichol G, Palaniappan L, Pandey DK, Reeves MJ, Rodriguez CJ, Sorlie PD, Stein J, Towfighi A, Turan TN, Virani SS, Willey JZ, Woo D, Yeh RW, Turner MB, American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee (2015) Heart disease and stroke statistics—2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 131(4):e29–e322Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Slaughter MS, Rogers JG, Milano CA, Russell SD, Conte JV, Feldman D, Sun B, Tatooles AJ, Delgado RM III, Long JW, Wozniak TC, Ghumman W, Farrar DJ, Frazier OH, HeartMate II Investigators (2009) Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med 361(23):2241–2251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loor G, Gonzalez-Stawinski G (2012) Pulsatile vs. continuous flow in ventricular assist device therapy. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 26(2):105–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2012.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sifain AR, Schwarz KQ, Hallinan W, Massey HT, Alexis JD (2014) Ventricular assist device thrombosis following recovery of left ventricular function. ASAIO J 60(2):243–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morgan JA, Brewer RJ, Nemeh HW, Gerlach B, Lanfear DE, Williams CT, Paone G (2014) Stroke while on long-term left ventricular assist device support: incidence, outcome, and predictors. ASAIO J 60(3):284–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crow S, John R, Boyle A, Shumway S, Liao K, Colvin-Adams M, Toninato C, Missov E, Pritzker M, Martin C, Garry D, Thomas W, Joyce L (2009) Gastrointestinal bleeding rates in recipients of nonpulsatile and pulsatile left ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137:208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pak SW, Uriel N, Takayama H, Cappleman S, Song R, Colombo PC, Charles S, Mancini D, Gillam L, Naka Y, Jorde UP (2010) Prevalence of de novo aortic insufficiency during long-term support with left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant 29:1172–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krabatsch T, Schweiger M, Dandel M, Stepanenko A, Drews T, Potapov E, Pasic M, Weng YG, Huebler M, Hetzer R (2011) Is bridge to recovery more likely with pulsatile left ventricular assist devices than with nonpulsatile-flow systems? Ann Thorac Surg 91(5):1335–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bourque K, Dague C, Farrar D, Harms K, Tamez D, Cohn W, Tuzun E, Poirier V, Frazier OH (2006) In vivo assessment of a rotary left ventricular assist device-induced artificial pulse in the proximal and distal aorta. Artif Organs 30(8):638–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frazier OH (2010) Unforeseen consequences of therapy with continuous-flow pumps. Circ Heart Fail 3(6):647–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ising M, Warren S, Sobieski M, Slaughter M, Koenig S, Giridharan G (2011) Flow modulation algorithms for continuous flow left ventricular assist devices to increase vascular pulsatility: a computer simulation study. Cardiovasc Eng Technol 2:90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soucy KG, Giridharan GA, Choi Y, Sobieski MA, Monreal G, Cheng A, Schumer E, Slaughter MS, Koenig SC (2015) Rotary pump speed modulation for generating pulsatile flow and phasic left ventricular volume unloading in a bovine model of chronic ischemic heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant 34(1):122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moazami N, Fukamachi K, Kobayashi M, Smedira NG, Hoercher KJ, Massiello A, Lee S, Horvath DJ, Starling RC (2013) Axial and centrifugal continuous-flow rotary pumps: a translation from pump mechanics to clinical practice. J Heart Lung Transplant 32:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nammakie E, Niroomand-Oscuii H, Koochaki M, Ghalichi F (2017) Computational fluid dynamics-based study of possibility of generating pulsatile blood flow via a continuous-flow VAD. Med Biol Eng Comput 55(1):167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roache PJ (1997) Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 29:123–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fraser KH, Zhang T, Taskin ME, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ (2012) A quantitative comparison of mechanical blood damage parameters in rotary ventricular assist devices: shear stress, exposure time and hemolysis index. J Biomech Eng 134(8):081002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32:1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jung Y, Baek J (2008) A numerical study on the unsteady flow behavior and the performance of an automotive sirocco fan. J Mech Sci Technol 22(10):1889–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bludszuweit C (1995) Model for a general mechanical blood damage prediction. Artif Organs 19:583–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taskin ME, Fraser KH, Zhang T, Wu C, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ (2012) Evaluation of Eulerian and Lagrangian models for hemolysis estimation. ASAIO J 58(4):363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farinas MI, Garon A, Lacasse D, N’dri D (2006) Asymptotically consistent numerical approximation of hemolysis. J Biomech Eng 128:688–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang J, Gellman B, Koert A, Dasse KA, Gilbert RJ, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ (2006) Computational and experimental evaluation of the fluid dynamics and hemocompatability of the centrimag blood pump. Artif Organs 30:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang T, Taskin ME, Fang HB, Pampori A, Jarvik R, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ (2011) Study of flow-induced hemolysis using novel Couette-type blood-shearing devices. Artif Organs 35(12):1180–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen Z, Mondal NK, Ding J, Koenig SC, Slaughter MS, Wu ZJ (2016) Paradoxical effect of nonphysiological shear stress on platelets and von Willebrand factor. Artif Organs 40(7):659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hasin T, Deo S, Maleszewski JJ, Topilsky Y, Edwards BS, Pereira NL, Stulak JM, Joyce L, Daly R, Kushwaha SS, Park SJ (2014) The role of medical management for acute intravascular hemolysis in patients supported on axial flow LVAD. ASAIO J 60(1):9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adamson RM, Dembitsky WP, Baradarian S, Chammas J, May-Newman K, Chillcott S, Stahovich M, McCalmont V, Ortiz K, Hoagland P, Jaski B (2011) Aortic valve closure associated with HeartMate left ventricular device support: technical considerations and long-term results. J Heart Lung Transplant 30(5):576–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ambardekar AV, Hunter KS, Babu AN, Tuder RM, Dodson RB, Lindenfeld J (2015) Changes in aortic wall structure, composition, and stiffness with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a pilot study. Circ Heart Fail 8:944–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tolpen S, Janmaat J, Reider C, Kallel F, Farrar D, May-Newman K (2015) Programmed speed reduction enables aortic valve opening and increased pulsatility in the LVAD-assisted heart. ASAIO J 61(5):540–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zengsheng Chen
    • 1
  • Sofen K. Jena
    • 2
  • Guruprasad A. Giridharan
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael A. Sobieski
    • 2
  • Steven C. Koenig
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mark S. Slaughter
    • 2
  • Bartley P. Griffith
    • 1
  • Zhongjun J. Wu
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Artificial Organs Laboratory, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic SurgeryUniversity of Louisville School of MedicineLouisvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Bioengineering, Speed School of EngineeringUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  4. 4.Fischell Department of Bioengineering, A. James Clark School of EngineeringUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations