Ex Vivo Working Porcine Heart Model.

Ex vivo working porcine heart models allow for the study of a heart's function and physiology outside the living organism. These models are particularly useful due to the anatomical and physiological similarities between porcine and human hearts, providing an experimental platform to investigate cardiac disease or assess donor heart viability for transplantation. This chapter presents an in-depth discussion of the model's components, including the perfusate, preload, and afterload. We explore the challenges of emulating cardiac afterload and present a historical perspective on afterload modeling, discussing various methodologies and their respective limitations. An actively controlled afterload device is introduced to enhance the model's ability to rapidly adjust pressure in the large arteries, thereby providing a more accurate and dynamic experimental model. Finally, we provide a comprehensive experimental protocol for the ex vivo working porcine heart model.

A novel nonlinear afterload for ex vivo heart evaluation: Porcine experimental results.

BACKGROUND: Existing working heart models for ex vivo functional evaluation of donor hearts often use cardiac afterloads made up of discrete resistive and compliant elements. This approach limits the practicality of independently controlling systolic and diastolic aortic pressure to safely test the heart under multiple loading conditions. We present and investigate a novel afterload concept designed to enable such control. METHODS: Six ∼70 kg pig hearts were evaluated in vivo, then ex vivo in left-ventricular working mode using the presented afterload. Both in vivo and ex vivo, the hearts were evaluated at two exertion levels: at rest and following a 20 µg adrenaline bolus, while measuring aortic pressure and flow, left ventricular pressure and volume, and left atrial pressure. RESULTS: The afterload gave aortic pressure waveforms that matched the general shape of the in vivo measurements. A wide range of physiological systolic pressures (93 to 160 mm Hg) and diastolic pressures (73 to 113 mm Hg) were generated by the afterload. CONCLUSIONS: With the presented afterload concept, multiple physiological loading conditions could be tested ex vivo, and compared with the corresponding in vivo data. An additional control loop from the set pressure limits to the measured systolic and diastolic aortic pressure is proposed to address discrepancies observed between the set limits and the measured pressures.