Linked Life Data

6360057

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/6360057

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
1984-1-27
pubmed:abstractText
In the controversy over pulsatile and nonpulsatile perfusion, most authors have failed to recognize the fundamental physical differences between the two methods. Pulsatile perfusion is polymorphic and its form varies with both the pulsatile source and the vascular system being perfused; nonpulsatile perfusion is by definition unvarying and uniform. While many studies of hemodynamics, metabolism, organ function, microcirculation, and histology show benefits derived from pulsatile perfusion, others do not. The simplest explanation for these conflicts is that different investigators employ different forms of pulsatile perfusion, only some of which are effective. Failure to quantitate adequately the pulsatile components of flow in these studies prevents differentiation between effective and ineffective forms of pulsatile flow and makes comparison of studies difficult. Future research in this area should be directed toward definition of effective pulsatile perfusion by adequate measurement of the pulsatile components of perfusion.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Dec
pubmed:issn
0003-4975
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
36
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
720-37
pubmed:dateRevised
2004-11-17
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1983
pubmed:articleTitle
Pulsatile and nonpulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass: review of a counterproductive controversy.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Review