An important question to ask in the cardiovascular disease arena is whether VAD can replace heart transplantation as a viable alternative and be even more beneficial to patients? It is necessary to find an alternative to heart transplantation quickly but current VADs cannot meet the equivalent reliability and longevity advantages of heart transplantation. Alternative solutions are ECCDs; those have the potential to replace heart transplantation and can revolutionize cardiovascular disease therapy.
History has shown that innovative thinking is more effective than pure advancement in technology and the simplest devices are often the most beneficial. Mechanical assist devices for the heart are a promising method for therapy but consist of advantages and disadvantages extensively covered by researchers. In order to move towards better device designs, there should be a focus on addressing current shortcomings by using a combination of advanced technologies as well as innovative thinking.
Advanced technology aims to find delicate and powerful engines. Considering the complications of today’s devices, many are impaired by fundamental design faults and not by motor size or power. The main factor that causes complications and reduces device life is direct contact to blood and the problem persists despite further advancements in technology. One main problem of cutting-edge technology is the high costs associated with the device, resulting in more than 90% of CHF patients not being able to afford it. Furthermore, the lack of post-operative care in developing countries exacerbates this problem.
If we accept the cardiac assist device as an appropriate alternative to transplantation, the problem of moving in the optimal direction as technologically and cost-effectively meeting the demand needs to be addressed. The following four guidelines are proposed to help in choosing the best design:
1. The less-blood-contact foreign surfaces due to less complications and longer device survival time.
2. The second guideline is related to device energy. Advancements in LVADs and batteries have allowed small batteries to supply devices with much lower energy requirements. However, the need for extracorporeal source of energy persists, leading to further burden and higher risks for the patient. An intracorporeal energy system would be ideal for cardiac assist devices.
3. The third guideline is to reduce percutaneous requirements of devices including catheter for fluid, blood or gas, controller signal wire and power cable. Infection is prevalent among LVAD patients and is mainly attributed percutaneous wiring and other parts to extracorporeal devices. Technology advancements should focus on reducing percutaneous leads towards fully wireless systems similar to today’s pacemakers.
4. The fourth guideline is to aim for smaller devices with simple and replaceable parts because more mechanical parts means higher breakdown risks and results in shortened device lifespans.
With consideration to the above guidelines, the ideal device will have no contact to blood and extracorporeal surfaces, lower dependency on extracorporeal sources of energy and is as simple as possible. While seemingly simple goals still require a large amount of research and development to achieve such a device.
Some ECCDs outlined above, despite being at a concept stage, match the guidelines for an ideal device better than current VAD technologies. Because of more research and advances in fields such as LVADs, and because of small size and only one moving part, impeller-based pumps have become a more popular therapy. Nevertheless, the inherent benefit of ECCDs not requiring contact to the blood to avoid complication has a promising future as an alternative. A device, ECCD or VAD, which can utilize both advanced technology and innovative thinking to achieve the ideal device, should be congratulated. We think, to design a new device, we should come back, think and see again. Simple devices with high technological material and intracorporeal source of energy will be an ideal design.