{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01588502269288956, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00832072617246596, 'mean_word_length': 5.485294117647059, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Major factors in the controversy of pulsatile versus nonpulsatile flow during acute and chronic cardiac support.

During the past 50 years, the controversy over the benefits of pulsatile versus nonpulsatile flow in cardiac surgery has not been solved.1 A detailed investigation in all published literature reveals that in a majority of publications, the investigators could not show any differences between perfusion modes during acute or chronic cardiac support. However, in more than 20 articles, it appears clear that pulsatile flow causes significantly less vital organ injury and systemic inflammation during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) procedures and chronic cardiac circulatory support.1–23 To the best of our knowledge, there is not a single publication that clearly shows the benefits of nonpulsatile perfusion over pulsatile perfusion in acute or chronic clinical or animal settings. The pro-nonpulsatile flow investigators can only claim that there is no difference between perfusion modes, whereas the pro-pulsatile investigators have documented clear benefits.1–23 The objective of this editorial is to examine the major causes for this continuing controversy and suggest potential solutions to end it. Following are the two major causes for the controversy, and both are valid for acute or chronic settings.