Blood trauma testing of CentriMag and RotaFlow centrifugal flow devices: a pilot study

Mechanical circulatory assist devices that provide temporary support in heart failure patients are needed to enable recovery or provide a bridge to decision. Minimizing risk of blood damage (i.e., hemolysis) with these devices is critical, especially if the length of support needs to be extended. Hematologic responses of the RotaFlow (Maquet) and CentriMag (Thoratec) temporary support devices were characterized in an in vitro feasibility study. Paired static mock flow loops primed with fresh bovine blood (700 mL, hematocrit [Hct] = 25 ± 3%, heparin titrated for activated clotting time >300 s) pooled from a single-source donor were used to test hematologic responses to RotaFlow (n = 2) and CentriMag (n = 2) simultaneously. Pump differential pressures, temperature, and flow were maintained at 250 ± 10 mm Hg, 25 ± 2°C, and 4.2 ± 0.25 L/min, respectively. Blood samples (3 mL) were collected at 0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, and 360 min after starting pumps in accordance with recommended Food and Drug Administration and American Society for Testing and Materials guidelines. The CentriMag operated at a higher average pump speed (3425 rpm) than the RotaFlow (3000 rpm) while maintaining similar constant flow rates (4.2 L/min). Hematologic indicators of blood trauma (hemoglobin, Hct, platelet count, plasma free hemoglobin, and white blood cell) for all measured time points as well as normalized and modified indices of hemolysis were similar (RotaFlow: normalized index of hemolysis [NIH] =  0.021 ± 0.003 g/100 L, modified index of hemolysis [MIH] = 3.28 ± 0.52 mg/mg compared to CentriMag: NIH =  0.041 ± 0.010 g/100 L, MIH = 6.08 ± 1.45 mg/mg). In this feasibility study, the blood trauma performance of the RotaFlow was similar or better than the CentriMag device under clinically equivalent, worst-case test conditions. The RotaFlow device may be a more cost-effective alternative to the CentriMag.