↓ Skip to main content

Hemodynamic Response to Exercise and Head‐Up Tilt

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Hemodynamic Response to Exercise and Head‐Up Tilt
Published in
Artificial Organs, October 2014
DOI 10.1111/aor.12370
Pubmed ID
Authors

Einly Lim, Robert Francis Salamonsen, Mahdi Mansouri, Nicholas Gaddum, David Glen Mason, Daniel L. Timms, Michael Charles Stevens, John Fraser, Rini Akmeliawati, Nigel Hamilton Lovell

Abstract

The present study investigates the response of implantable rotary blood pump (IRBP)-assisted patients to exercise and head-up tilt (HUT), as well as the effect of alterations in the model parameter values on this response, using validated numerical models. Furthermore, we comparatively evaluate the performance of a number of previously proposed physiologically responsive controllers, including constant speed, constant flow pulsatility index (PI), constant average pressure difference between the aorta and the left atrium, constant average differential pump pressure, constant ratio between mean pump flow and pump flow pulsatility (ratioP I or linear Starling-like control), as well as constant left atrial pressure ( P l a ¯ ) control, with regard to their ability to increase cardiac output during exercise while maintaining circulatory stability upon HUT. Although native cardiac output increases automatically during exercise, increasing pump speed was able to further improve total cardiac output and reduce elevated filling pressures. At the same time, reduced venous return associated with upright posture was not shown to induce left ventricular (LV) suction. Although P l a ¯ control outperformed other control modes in its ability to increase cardiac output during exercise, it caused a fall in the mean arterial pressure upon HUT, which may cause postural hypotension or patient discomfort. To the contrary, maintaining constant average pressure difference between the aorta and the left atrium demonstrated superior performance in both exercise and HUT scenarios. Due to their strong dependence on the pump operating point, PI and ratioPI control performed poorly during exercise and HUT. Our simulation results also highlighted the importance of the baroreflex mechanism in determining the response of the IRBP-assisted patients to exercise and postural changes, where desensitized reflex response attenuated the percentage increase in cardiac output during exercise and substantially reduced the arterial pressure upon HUT.

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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 18 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 29%
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 27 March 2015.
All research outputs
#19,299,788
of 24,571,708 outputs
Outputs from Artificial Organs
#1,559
of 1,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,137
of 265,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Artificial Organs
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,571,708 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 1,917 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 265,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.