The Importance of Venous Return in Starling‐Like Control of Rotary Ventricular Assist Devices

Rotary ventricular assist devices (VADs) are less sensitive to preload than the healthy heart, resulting in inadequate flow regulation in response to changes in patient cardiac demand. Starling‐like physiological controllers (SLCs) have been developed to automatically regulate VAD flow based on ventricular preload. An SLC consists of a cardiac response curve (CRC) which imposes a nonlinear relationship between VAD flow and ventricular preload, and a venous return line (VRL) which determines the return path of the controller. This study investigates the importance of a physiological VRL in SLC of dual rotary blood pumps for biventricular support. Two experiments were conducted on a physical mock circulation loop (MCL); the first compared an SLC with an angled physiological VRL (SLC‐P) against an SLC with a vertical VRL (SLC‐V). The second experiment quantified the benefit of a dynamic VRL, represented by a series of specific VRLs, which could adapt to different circulatory states including changes in pulmonary (PVR) and systemic (SVR) vascular resistance versus a fixed physiological VRL which was calculated at rest. In both sets of experiments, the transient controller responses were evaluated through reductions in preload caused by the removal of fluid from the MCL. The SLC‐P produced no overshoot or oscillations following step changes in preload, whereas SLC‐V produced 0.4 L/min (12.5%) overshoot for both left and right VADs. Additionally, the SLC‐V had increased settling time and reduced controller stability as evidenced by transient controller oscillations. The transient results comparing the specific and standard VRLs demonstrated that specific VRL rise times were improved by between 1.2 and 4.7 s ( = 3.05 s), while specific VRL settling times were improved by between 2.8 and 16.1 seconds ( = 8.38 s) over the standard VRL. This suggests only a minor improvement in controller response time from a dynamic VRL compared to the fixed VRL. These results indicate that the use of a fixed physiologically representative VRL is adequate over a wide variety of physiological conditions.     

Insights from examination of hearts from adults dying suddenly to the understanding of congenital cardiac malformations

Congenital heart disease is a rare but important finding in adults who experience sudden death. Examination of the congenitally malformed heart has historically been considered esoteric and best left to those with expertise. The Cardiac Risk in the Young cardiovascular pathology laboratory based at St George's University of London has now received over 6,000 cases. Of these, 21 congenitally malformed hearts were retained for research and educational purposes. Hearts were assessed using sequential segmental analysis, and causes of death were adjudicated based on thorough macroscopic examination and histology. Congenital malformations that were encountered included atrial septal defects, ventricular septal defects, tetralogy of Fallot, and transposition of the great arteries in both its regular and congenitally corrected variants. Findings also included hearts with mirror-imaged and isomeric atrial appendages. Direct causes of death included myocardial fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and hemorrhage. A small but notable proportion did not reveal a substrate for arrhythmia, raising the question of whether the terminal event was due to the congenital heart disease itself, or an underlying channelopathy. Here, we demonstrate the value of simple sequential segmental analysis in describing and categorizing the cases, with the concept of the “morphological method” serving to identify the distinguishing features of the cardiac components. Clin. Anat. 33:394–404, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Editorial Commentary: Single Versus Double-Row Abductor Tendon Repair: Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze?

Anatomical understanding of the peritrochanteric space and abductor insertions has been well documented in the literature. Extrapolating this knowledge to perform a “successful” abductor tendon repair has led to controversy over the best method to achieve a durable, stable repair and improve patient outcomes. I feel that the debate in the hip over single- versus double-row fixation is only beginning and we are in for a ride to uncover the best method, as we have with the shoulder over the last 15 years. What is best? Single or double row?