↓ Skip to main content

Master/Slave Control of Dual LVADs

Overview of attention for article published in Artificial Organs, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Master/Slave Control of Dual LVADs
Published in
Artificial Organs, April 2014
DOI 10.1111/aor.12303
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael C. Stevens, Stephen Wilson, Andrew Bradley, John Fraser, Daniel Timms

Abstract

Dual rotary left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) can provide biventricular mechanical support during heart failure. Coordination of left and right pump speeds is critical not only to avoid ventricular suction and to match cardiac output with demand, but also to ensure balanced systemic and pulmonary circulatory volumes. Physiological control systems for dual LVADs must meet these objectives across a variety of clinical scenarios by automatically adjusting left and right pump speeds to avoid catastrophic physiological consequences. In this study we evaluate a novel master/slave physiological control system for dual LVADs. The master controller is a Starling-like controller, which sets flow rate as a function of end-diastolic ventricular pressure (EDP). The slave controller then maintains a linear relationship between right and left EDPs. Both left/right and right/left master/slave combinations were evaluated by subjecting them to four clinical scenarios (rest, postural change, Valsalva maneuver, and exercise) simulated in a mock circulation loop. The controller's performance was compared to constant-rotational-speed control and two other dual LVAD control systems: dual constant inlet pressure and dual Frank-Starling control. The results showed that the master/slave physiological control system produced fewer suction events than constant-speed control (6 vs. 62 over a 7-min period). Left/right master/slave control had lower risk of pulmonary congestion than the other control systems, as indicated by lower maximum EDPs (15.1 vs. 25.2-28.4 mm Hg). During exercise, master/slave control increased total flow from 5.2 to 10.1 L/min, primarily due to an increase of left and right pump speed. Use of the left pump as the master resulted in fewer suction events and lower EDPs than when the right pump was master. Based on these results, master/slave control using the left pump as the master automatically adjusts pump speed to avoid suction and increases pump flow during exercise without causing pulmonary venous congestion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 27%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 24 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Mathematics 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Artificial Organs
#1,625
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,695
of 241,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Artificial Organs
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.