The effect of innate compliance on the performance of a counterpulsation device

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be one of the top causes of mortality in the world. World Heart Organization (WHO) reported that in 2004, CVD contributed to almost 30% of death from estimated worldwide death figures of 58 million[1]. Heart failure treatment varies from lifestyle adjustment to heart transplantation; its aims are to reduce HF symptoms, prolong patient survival and minimize risk [2]. One alternative available in the market for HF treatment is Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD). Chronic Intermittent Mechanical Support (CIMS) device is a novel (LVAD) heart failure treatment using counterpulsation similar to Intra Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABP). However, the implantation site of the CIMS balloon is in the ascending aorta just distal to aortic valve contrasted with IABP in the descending aorta. Counterpulsation coupled with implantation close to the aortic valve enables comparable flow augmentation with reduced balloon volume. Two prototypes of the CIMS balloon were constructed using rapid prototyping: the straight-body model is a cylindrical tube with a silicone membrane lining with zero expansive compliance. The compliant-body model had a bulging structure that allowed the membrane to expand under native systolic pressure increasing the device’s static compliance to 1.5 mL/mmHg. This study examined the effect of device compliance and vascular compliance on counterpulsating flow augmentation. Both prototypes were tested on a two-element Windkessel model human mock circulatory loop (MCL). The devices were placed just distal to aortic valve and left coronary artery. The MCL mimicked HF with cardiac output of 3 L/min, left ventricular pressure of 85/15 mmHg, aortic pressure of 70/50 mmHg and left coronary artery flow rate of 66 mL/min. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) was calculated to be 57 mmHg. Arterial compliance was set to be1.25 mL/mmHg and 2.5 mL/mmHg. Inflation of the balloon was triggered at the dicrotic notch while deflation was at minimum aortic pressure prior to systole. Important haemodynamics parameters such as left ventricular pressure (LVP), aortic pressure (AoP), cardiac output (CO), left coronary artery flowrate (QcorMean), and dP (Peak aortic diastolic augmentation pressure – AoPmax ) were simultaneously recorded for both non-assisted mode and assisted mode. ANOVA was used to analyse the effect of both factors (balloon and arterial compliance) to flow augmentation. The results showed that for cardiac output and left coronary artery flowrate, there were significant difference between balloon and arterial compliance at p < 0.001. Cardiac output recorded maximum output at 18% for compliant body and stiff arterial compliance. Left coronary artery flowrate also recorded around 20% increase due to compliant body and stiffer arterial compliance. Resistance to blood ejection recorded highest difference for combination of straight body and stiffer arterial compliance. From these results it is clear that both balloon and arterial compliance are statistically significant factors for flow augmentation on peripheral artery and reduction of resistance. Although the result for resistance reduction was different from flow augmentation, these results serves as an important aspect which will influence the future design of the CIMS balloon and its control strategy. References: 1. Mathers C, Boerma T, Fat DM. The Global Burden of disease:2004 update. Geneva: World Heatlh Organization; 2008. 2. Jessup M, Brozena S. Heart Failure. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2007-18.