↓ Skip to main content

In Vivo Evaluation of Physiological Control Systems

Overview of attention for article published in Artificial Organs, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
In Vivo Evaluation of Physiological Control Systems
Published in
Artificial Organs, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/aor.12654
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaun D. Gregory, Michael C. Stevens, Jo P. Pauls, Emma Schummy, Sara Diab, Bruce Thomson, Ben Anderson, Geoff Tansley, Robert Salamonsen, John F. Fraser, Daniel Timms

Abstract

Preventing ventricular suction and venous congestion through balancing flow rates and circulatory volumes with dual rotary ventricular assist devices (VADs) configured for biventricular support is clinically challenging due to their low preload and high afterload sensitivities relative to the natural heart. This study presents the in vivo evaluation of several physiological control systems, which aim to prevent ventricular suction and venous congestion. The control systems included a sensor-based, master/slave (MS) controller that altered left and right VAD speed based on pressure and flow; a sensor-less compliant inflow cannula (IC), which altered inlet resistance and, therefore, pump flow based on preload; a sensor-less compliant outflow cannula (OC) on the right VAD, which altered outlet resistance and thus pump flow based on afterload; and a combined controller, which incorporated the MS controller, compliant IC, and compliant OC. Each control system was evaluated in vivo under step increases in systemic (SVR ∼1400-2400 dyne/s/cm(5) ) and pulmonary (PVR ∼200-1000 dyne/s/cm(5) ) vascular resistances in four sheep supported by dual rotary VADs in a biventricular assist configuration. Constant speed support was also evaluated for comparison and resulted in suction events during all resistance increases and pulmonary congestion during SVR increases. The MS controller reduced suction events and prevented congestion through an initial sharp reduction in pump flow followed by a gradual return to baseline (5.0 L/min). The compliant IC prevented suction events; however, reduced pump flows and pulmonary congestion were noted during the SVR increase. The compliant OC maintained pump flow close to baseline (5.0 L/min) and prevented suction and congestion during PVR increases. The combined controller responded similarly to the MS controller to prevent suction and congestion events in all cases while providing a backup system in the event of single controller failure.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 16 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 24%
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 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#19,223,153
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Artificial Organs
#1,545
of 1,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,322
of 403,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Artificial Organs
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 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 1,908 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 403,648 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.