Could the C-Pulse by SSH as early on intervention render Thor products mostly
from an Aussie down under ..I know some people have questioned the effectiveness of IABP, saying that there is still a high mortality rate in patients in which it is used (trying to question whether it has any efficacy at all)...
Here is a quote from Texas Heart Institute...
"Dr. Adrian Kantrowitz introduced the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in the late 1960s as a simple yet effective device to increase coronary perfusion. Because it is easy to insert, the IABP is the most widely used form of mechanical circulatory support. At the Texas Heart Institute, the IABP is now used in more than 450 patients each year."
I'd like to highlight the fact that this procedure, in one institute (albeit one of the world's major players) is used FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY times a year. Does that sound like an obsolete, ineffective technology?
To learn more about how it works and why its efficacy is close to assured you should read about Intra Aortic Balloon Pumps as this is the technology that C-Pulse is based off. The benefit of C-Pulse is that it provides both the benefits (decreased afterload and increase coronary artery perfusion) without all the nasty side effects of IABP (blood contacting, infection risk etc.etc.)... IABP is still one of the most effective techniques for people with cardio genic shock who are on death's door.
What C-pulse does, is use the same base technology but build it in a way that allows it to stay in permanently and not have any blood contact. They have a slight pressure on the artery when the cuff inflates but this seems to have caused no issues what so ever in the trials to date. Arterial tissue isnt some weak tissue thats likely to tear when gentle pressure is applied to it.
The longer term effectiveness of Aortic Pressure was never known as it had never been used for chronic conditions. What C-pulse is showing is that the effectiveness on chronic conditions is so great, that multiple patients are being disconnected from the device... At a rate that is equal or better to LVADs.... Also as C-pulse can be programmed to different ratios ( initially 1 inflate per beat, down to 1 per 2 beats etc. etc.), C-Pulse can perform a simple weaning procedure that has no real risk at all. LVAD weaning protocol doesnt seem that dangerous, but its definitely more of an 'estimate' when compared to SSH. With C-pulse, when you think the patient is ready, you can simply take the battery out for a few days and see how the patient goes.... With LVADs, at some stage you have to pull the whole device out and simply cross your fingers that you picked the correct patient.... With trial and error medicine you'll find doctors play it Ultra-Conservatively and as such LVAD patients who may be suitable for weaning may be left on the device simply because the doctors think its an unacceptable risk