{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025049439683586024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.746666666666667, '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}}
Rotary Pumps and Diminished Pulsatility: Do We Need a Pulse?

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) have been successfully used as a bridge to heart transplant and destination therapy (DT) for congestive heart failure (HF) patients. Recently, continuous flow VAD (CVAD) has emerged as an attractive clinical option for long-term mechanical support of HF patients, with bridge-to-transplant outcomes comparable with pulsatile flow VAD (PVAD). Continuous flow VADs are smaller, more reliable, and less complex than the first-generation PVAD. Despite the widespread clinical use, CVAD support has been associated with gastrointestinal bleeding, hemorrhagic strokes, and aortic valve insufficiency. Speculation that diminished arterial pressure pulsatility associated with continuous flow devices may be contributing to these complications has sparked much debate over CVAD support. Studies comparing pulsatile flow and continuous flow (CF) support have presented conflicting findings, and the relevance to CVAD as DT is uncertain due to variations in device operation, support duration, and the criteria used to quantify pulsatility. Currently, there is interest in developing control algorithms for CVAD to increase the delivered pulsatility as a strategy to mitigate adverse event risks associated with CVAD therapy. There may also be the added benefit of specific control strategies for managing CVAD therapy, potentially improving the rate of myocardial recovery and successful weaning of mechanical circulatory support.