|
|
||||||||
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:189-190
© 2000 Mosby, Inc.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimatology, Gunma University, School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-machi
Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan
Reply to the Editor:
We appreciate the interest and comments of Drs Ündar and Fraser. Several investigators
1 have tried to establish common criteria for pulsatile flow, but it is not clear which type of pulsatile waveform has positive effects on cerebral circulation and improves outcome of patients.
2 As stated by Ündar and associates,
3 it is impossible to compare the results of different investigations in which different types of pulsatility were used.
We can see that the concept of energy equivalent pressure introduced by Shepard, Simpson, and Sharp
4 is useful for understanding the quality of pulsatile perfusion. Wright
5 believes that hemodynamic considerations were fundamental to resolve the controversy of the pulsatility waveform. We hope that further clinical investigations will determine the best pulsatile form and will be supported by logical theories, such as energy equivalent pressure.
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |