Mechanical Circulatory Support

  • Joe Helou
  • Robert L. Kormos
Part of the Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine book series (DICM, volume 225)


Mechanical cardiac assistance had its origins as an offshoot from the development of cardiopulmonary bypass. Early efforts in the design and development of devices were focused on providing support for the body and the heart during periods of recovery from impaired cardiac function following unsuccessful cardiac surgery and / or acute myocardial infarction. With the recognition that cardiac replacement was needed for end-stage congestive heart failure, research developed along parallel lines with both natural (heart transplantation) and mechanical (total artificial heart) solutions. Therefore, today mechanical circulatory support is used primarily in these two settings: a) for acute onset of myocardial failure that is potentially recoverable (post-cardiotomy or acute myocardial infarction support) and b) for chronic end-stage congestive heart failure which is refractory to traditional medical therapy. The latter setting has the largest potential population of patients that require assistance and help.


Centrifugal Pump Ventricular Assist Device Mechanical Circulatory Support Total Artificial Heart Axial Flow Pump 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Massie BM et al. Survival of patients with congestive heart failure: past, present and future prospects. Circulation 1987; 75:(suppl) IV 11–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norman JC et al. Prognostic indices for survival during post-cardiotomy intra-aortic balloon pumping. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1977; 74: 709–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jett GK. Postcardiotomy support with ventricular assist devices: selection of recipients. Sem Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994; 6:136–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castells E et al. Ventricular circulatory assistance with the Abiomed system as a bridge to heart transplantation. Transplant Proc 1995; 27: 2343–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wareing TH et al. Postcardiotomy mechanical circulatory support in the elderly. Ann Thorac Surg 1991, 51: 443–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farrar DJ et al. Preoperative predictors of survival in patients with Thoratec ventricular assist devices as a bridge to heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 1994; 13: 93–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swartz MT et al. Risk stratification in patients bridged to cardiac transplantation. Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 58:1142–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oz MC et al. Screening scale predicts patients successfully receiving long-term implantable left ventricular assist devices. Circulation 1995; 92(Suppl): II–1169.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Connell JB et al. Effect of peri-operative hemodynamic support on survival after cardiac transplantation. Circulation 1988; (Suppl II):III–78.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alcan KE et al. Current status of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in critical care cardiology. Crit Care Med 1984; 12:489–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Birovljev S et al. Heart transplantation after mechanical circulatory support: four years experience. J Heart Lung Transplant 1992; 11: 240–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lonn U et al. Hemopump treatment in patients with post cardiotomy heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg 1995; 60: 1067–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mack MJ et al. Video-assisted coronary bypass grafting on the beating heart. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997; 63(6 Suppl):S100–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferrari M et al. PTCA with the use of cardiac assist devices: Risk stratification, short-&0026; long-term results. Cath &0026; Cardiovasc Diagnosis 1996; 38:242–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wampler RK et al. Treatment of cardiogenic shock with the Hemopump left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg 1991; 52: 506–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peterzen B et al. Postoperative management of patients with Hemopump support after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 62(2): 495–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joyce LD et al. Experience with generally accepted centrifugal pumps: Personal and collective experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61(1): 287–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noon GP et al. Clinical experience with the Biomedicus centrifugal ventricular support in 172 patients. Artif Organs 19(7): 756–60.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    El-Banayosy A et al. Seven years of experience with the centrifugal pump in patients in cardiogenic shock. Thorac Cardiovasc Surgeon 1995; 43: 347–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bolman III RM et al. Circulatory support with a centrifugal pump as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. Ann Thorac Surg 1989; 47:108–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jett GK. ABIOMED BVS 5000: experience and potential advantages. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61(1): 301–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thoratec VAD system. Monograph of clinical results. Thoratec Laboratories. December 1998Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poirier VL. The HeartMate left ventricular assist system: Worldwide clinical experience. Eur J Cardiothor Surg 1997; 11: S39–S44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arabia FA et al. International experience with the CardioWest total artificial heart as a bridge to heart transplantation. Eur J Cardiothor Surg 1997; 11: S5–S10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arabia FA et al. Success rates of long-term circulatory assist devices used currently for bridge to heart transplantation. ASAIO Journal 1996; 42: M542–M546.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldstein DJ et al. Use of Aprotinin in LVAD recipients reduces blood loss, blood use and perioperative mortality. Ann Thorac Surg 1995; 23:1063–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Copeland JG III. Thromboembolism and bleeding: clinical strategies. Ann Thorac Surgery 1996; 61(1): 376–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Farrar DJ. Ventricular interactions during mechanical circulatory support. Sem Thorac &0026; Cardiovasc Surg 1994: 6(3): 163–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kormos RL et al. Evaluation of right ventricular function during clinical left ventricular assistance. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1989; 35: 547–550.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pennington DG et al. The importance of biventricular failure in patients with post-operative cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 1985; 39:16–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kormos RL et al. Transplant candidate’s clinical status rather than right ventricular function defines need for univentricular versus biventricular support. J Thorac & Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 111(4): 773–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pavie A et al. Physiology of univentricular versus biventricular support. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61:347–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myers TJ et al. Frequency and significance of infections in patients receiving prolonged LVAD support. ASAIO Transactions 1991; 37(3): M283–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Argenziano M. et al. The influence of infection on survival and successful transplantation in patients with left ventricular assist devices. Journal of Heart &0026; Lung Transplantation 1997; 16(8): 822–31.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fischer SA et al. Infectious complications in left ventricular assist device recipients. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1997; 24(1): 18–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCarthy PM et al. Implantable LVAD infections: Implications for permanent use of the Device. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61:359–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Holman WL et al. Infections during extended circulatory support: University of Alabama at Birmingham experience 1989–1994. Ann Thorac Surg 1995; 61: 366–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Farrar D et al. Successful biventricular circulatory support as a bridge to cardiac transplantation during prolonged ventricular fibrillation and asystole. Circulation 1989; 80(Suppl III) 147–151.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oz MC et al. Malignant ventricular arrhythmias are not well tolerated in patients receiving long-term left ventricular assist devices. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 24:1688–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scheinin S et al. The effect of prolonged left ventricular support on myocardial histopathology in patients with end-stage cardiomyopathy. ASAIO Journal 1992; 31: M271–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jacquet L et al. Evolution of human cardiac myocyte dimension during prolonged mechanical support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1991; 101: 256–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joe Helou
  • Robert L. Kormos

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations