Preload-based starling-like control for rotary blood pumps: Numerical comparison with pulsatility control and constant speed operation

• Main Authors: Mansouri, M., Salamonsen, R.F., Lim, E., Akmeliawati, R., Lovell, N.H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science 2015
• Subjects: T Technology (General); TA Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
• Online Access: http://eprints.um.edu.my/15784/1/Preload-Based_Starling-Like_Control_for_Rotary_Blood_Pumps_Numerical_Comparison_.pdf; http://eprints.um.edu.my/15784/; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25849979
• Institution: Universiti Malaya

In this study, we evaluate a preload-based Starling-like controller for implantable rotary blood pumps (IRBPs) using left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (PLVED) as the feedback variable. Simulations are conducted using a validated mathematical model. The controller emulates the response of the natural left ventricle (LV) to changes in PLVED. We report the performance of the preload-based Starling-like controller in comparison with our recently designed pulsatility controller and constant speed operation. In handling the transition from a baseline state to test states, which include vigorous exercise, blood loss and a major reduction in the LV contractility (LVC), the preload controller outperformed pulsatility control and constant speed operation in all three test scenarios. In exercise, preload-control achieved an increase of 54 in mean pump flow ((Q) over bar (P)) with minimum loading on the LV, while pulsatility control achieved only a 5 increase in flow and a decrease in mean pump speed. In a hemorrhage scenario, the preload control maintained the greatest safety margin against LV suction. PLVED for the preload controller was 4.9 mmHg, compared with 0.4 mmHg for the pulsatility controller and 0.2 mmHg for the constant speed mode. This was associated with an adequate mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 84 mmHg. In transition to low LVC, (Q) over bar (P) for preload control remained constant at 5.22 L/min with a PLVED of 8.0 mmHg. With regards to pulsatility control, (Q) over bar (P) fell to the nonviable level of 2.4 L/min with an associated PLVED of 16 mmHg and a MAP of 55 mmHg. Consequently, pulsatility control was deemed inferior to constant speed mode with a PLVED of 11 mmHg and a (Q) over bar (P) of 5.13 L/min in low LVC scenario. We conclude that pulsatility control imposes a danger to the patient in the severely reduced LVC scenario, which can be overcome by using a preload-based Starling-like control approach.