Multi-indicator analysis of mechanical blood damage with five clinical ventricular assist devices

Abstract

PurposeDevice-induced blood damage contributes the hemolysis, thrombosis and bleeding complications in patients supported with ventricular assist device (VAD). This study aims to use a multi-indicator method to understand how devices causes blood damage and identify the “hot spots” of blood trauma within VADs. MethodsComputational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods were chosen to investigate the hemodynamic features of five clinical VADs (Impella 5.0, UltraMag, CHVAD, HVAD, and HeartMate II) under the same clinical support condition (flow rate of 4.5L/min, pressure head around 75 mmHg). A comprehensive multi-indicator evaluation method including hemodynamic parameters, hemolysis model, thrombotic potential model and bleeding probability model was used to analyze blood damage and assess the hemodynamic performance and hemocompatibility of these VADs. ResultsSimulation results show that shear stress from 50 Pa to 100 Pa plays a major role in blood damage in Impella 5.0, UltraMag and CHVAD, while blood damage in HVAD and HeartMate II is mainly caused by shear stress greater than 100 Pa. Residence time was not the main factor for blood damage in Impella 5.0, and also makes a limited contribution to blood trauma in UltraMag and CHVAD, while it takes a critical role in elevating thrombotic potential in HVAD and HeartMate II. The distribution of regions of high hemolysis risk and high bleeding probability was similar for all these VADs and partially overlapped for high thrombotic potential regions. For Impella 5.0, regions with high hemolysis and bleeding risk were found mainly in the blade tip clearance and diffuser domains, high thrombotic potential regions were almost absent. For UltraMag, regions with high hemolysis, bleeding and thrombosis potential were found in two corners of the inlet pipe, the secondary flow passage, and the impeller eye. For CHVAD, the high-risk regions for hemolysis, bleeding and thrombosis are mainly in the inner side of the secondary flow passage and the middle region of the impeller passage. The narrow hydrodynamic clearance and impeller passage had a high risk of hemolysis and bleeding, and the clearance between the rotor and guide cone and the hydrodynamic clearance had high thrombotic potential. For HeartMate II, regions of high hemolysis risk and bleeding probability were found in the near-wall region of the straightener, the blade tip clearance and the diffuser domain. The corners of the inlet and outlet pipe and the straightener and diffuser regions had high thrombotic potential. ConclusionThe risk of hemolysis, bleeding and thrombosis for these five VADs, in increasing order, was Impella 5.0, UltraMag, CHVAD, HVAD, and HeartMate II. Flow losses caused by the rotor mechanical movement, chaotic flow and narrow clearances increase the blood damage for all these VADs. The multi-indicator analysis can comprehensively evaluate the VAD performance with improved assessment accuracy of CFD.