|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 4, 2008, April 4, 2009, and April 4, 2012.|
- 1 (null header)
- 2 Power needs
- 3 Nonsense?
- 4 Heartmate II
- 5 Invention of Artificial Heart
- 6 Winchell Bunk Needs Fixing
- 7 Needs some clean-up
- 8 Recent Developments
- 9 Need to split this up.
- 10 AbioCor II information Out of Date
- 11 An expert check is required
- 12 Centrifugal pump
- 13 Accusatory tone in article
- 14 Ventriloquist??
- 15 Jarvik-7 Redirect
- 16 What's up with this paragraph?
- 17 More in fiction
- 18 Replacement of real heart as a movable and portable instead of real
- 19 The entire article needs to be rewritten
If there is a professional on the subject, what is the major problem in electrical power from the body?
- Not an expert, but the human body only produces small voltages (couple of millivolts) and currents, not enough to power a device (otherwise we'd fashion instruments to charge our cell phones from our skin). Also, there's the matter of harnessing the energy since it's usually in the form of chemical energy. The only electrical "energy" available in the body is through action potentials, usually used for "signalling" (neurons, muscles), not "powering" them (which is done by ATP and other chemical reactions). Wikipedia brown 03:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"On July 2, 2001, Robert Tools received the first completely self-contained artificial heart transplant in a surgery done by University of Louisville doctors at Jewish Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky. It is called the AbioCor Implantable Replacement Heart. Tom Christerson survived for 17 months after his artificial heart transplant."
First, the AbioCor implantable heart part is badly worded and in the wrong place, perhaps it should be added to the first sentence ("the heart implanted in Robert Tools at Louisville was the AbioCor Impla.." for example). Secondly, what does Tom Christerson have to do with it? I'm glad he lived 17 months after his transplant, but is that the longest survival rate on record, or was his surgery also at UofL? The whole paragraph reads like nonsense. 220.127.116.11 11:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, this article needs a complete rewrite. It's a mess and it's hard to understand. We should send this to the cleanup department because it needs some dedicated work. Nameless9123 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This article needs some more development. Here's a link to a new device, recently implanted in a human. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17523&ch=biotech 18.104.22.168 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Invention of Artificial Heart
According to "Total Artificial Heart" by O. H. Frazier/ Nyma A. Shah/ Timothy J. Myers, the inventors of this device are different. The authors use some references to their claims which I cannot have access to. Would someone who has this privilege check if the information they provided is accurate and if it is, can this article be modified to honor the real inventors?
Thanks in advance,
Hievda Ugur firstname.lastname@example.org Undergraduate student Chemical Engineering Department, University of California, Santa Barbara —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Winchell Bunk Needs Fixing
The tale of voice actor Paul Winchell inventing the artificial heart seems to be thoroughly debunked on the Winchell page. I'm not quite sure how to clean this up - the legend should still be mentioned, but then that begs the question of who was first? I'm marking it "dubious," hope someone beats me to fixing it.stephan.com 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Needs some clean-up
I don't know how to work with the formatting, but refs 4 and 5 are the same sources used in multiple areas of the page. The same is true for 18 and 19. I don't know how this works: 4a, 4b? If someone can please repair this minor formatting problem. Thans. --NjEdelman 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi How can Asia's first artificial heart transplantation be a recent development in the field's body of knowledge? It could be news of significant importance for the hospital and the interested parties. Unless there is some procedural innovation or development, it should not be placed under the recent development sub-heading. Please elaborate that it's a recent development otherwise this will be moved to another section. Cheers, Krish
I agree--the section on total artificial heart doesn't say what's new about the procedure, and the medical data on the patients heart rate are missing the forest for the trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Need to split this up.
Artificial hearts are just what the name implies--replacements for the biological heart. They are not ventricular assist devices, baloon pumps, or bypass machines. Those subjects need to be dealt with on their own page.
Also, there is no mention in this article of the CardioWest artificial heart or the company that manufactures it. This device is approved in the US and Europe, just received approval for coverage by the US Medicare system, and has over 20 of its hearts in patients worldwide at any one time. The manufacturer, Syncardia Systems, Inc., continues development of the device and of improved driver consoles. The latest incarnation of the latter is a miniature 4-pound replacement for the 450-pound "Big-Blue" console currently in use.
There is no mention of the artificial heart developed in Queensland Australia (Brisbane's Prince Charles Hospital) to be marketed under the name Bivacor. This device which fits inside a human body and can mimic the pumping fluctuations of a healthy heart. The key elements of the Bivacor's design: The titanium device – which is about the size of a fist has a revolutionary pump that duplicates the function of both sides of the heart. It is driven by tiny electromagnets, the pump's twin rotors can alter speed and position to suit blood-flow depending on a patient's activities. The Bivacor allows patients free movement and will reduce the risk of infection, by being secured inside the body and without external tubes. Once in production, the Bivacor, which has been patented, is expected to cost about $60,000 a unit. Most of the funding for the Bivacor project – about $250,000 so far – came from the Prince Charles Hospital Foundation raising funds through selling ice creams at the [[Ekka]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekka]. The Bivacor is expected to be in clinical trials in the next three years if the team can secure funding of $3 million. A German company has approached the team to fund development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
AbioCor II information Out of Date
An expert check is required
A recent article reported the implantation of an artificial heart into the thoracic cavity of a 15-year old italian boy, in the it:Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, of Rome, claiming that this was the first occasion when an artificial heart was implanted into the chest of such a young person. I have taken this originally on its face value, but now I have doubts whether this is really a complete heart or just a heart-assisting device, because it is implanted into the left ventricle, connected to the left descending aorta, and no mention of the rest of the heart. Would somebody kindly check the article, where the news (corrected if necessary) could be incorporated into this article or with the heart assist devices, if such article exists. Thanks for someone.
Quoting from our own Bambino Gesù Hospital article, last paragraph:
- A medical team from Children's Hospital Bambino Gesù of Rome made the last october the forth 2010 the first transplant in the world of permanent artificial heart in a patient of 15 years old, and Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital Website in (Italian) or in (English)
- How often is a patient fitted with a centrifugal pump or axial flow artificial heart and as a result is alive without a pulse? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Accusatory tone in article
In the First clinical implantation of a total artificial heart section, there's a rather accusatory tone towards the two doctors who installed an artificial heart in a man who very shortly after died with a heart transplant, saying that it was a huge mistake removing the fake heart from him to transplant a real one, because if they had left the fake one in him he might've lived longer. Well the original intent of the fake heart in the first place was to act as a placeholder for a real heart, it was never the goal to have him permanently live with the fake heart. That he died from complications resulting from the transplant was indeed sad but unsurprising, even today there's a high mortality rate that occurs with organ transplantation, imagine how much higher that risk was back in 1969, when medical science and technology were nowhere near as advanced as today's. The doctors shouldn't be made to look like it was their fault the patient died, they were using radical technology to attempt to save a life back then, that should be noted even in spite of the failure that did not appear to be their fault. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Came here to say the same thing. The way it's written in the article is downright silly because keeping the mechanical heart isn't even an option. Just because they made some mistakes in replacing it doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it, it just means they shouldn't have made those mistakes. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
What's with mentioning the guys chosen profession? If he was a hedge fund banker, would that be mentionable? I couldn't care less about his profession, for all I care he is/was a real estate agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the redirect to this article from Jarvik-7 really appropriate? The Jarvik-7 is only mentioned in passing - there isn't a section about it or even a paragraph. My expectation at least from a redirect is that it leads to some substantial information about the subject.Bill (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
What's up with this paragraph?
"On October 27, 2008, French professor and leading heart transplant specialist Alain F. Carpentier announced that a fully implantable artificial heart will be ready for clinical trial by 2011 and for alternative transplant in 2013. It was developed and will be manufactured by him, biomedical firm Carmat, and venture capital firm Truffle. The prototype uses electronic sensors and is made from chemically treated animal tissues, called "biomaterials", or a "pseudo-skin" of biosynthetic, microporous materials. According to an interview of the professor at Pierre and Marie Curie University, academician French Academy of Sciences Alain Carpentier (2011) from the Georges Pompidou European Hospital in Paris A number of leading cardiac clinics conduct successful partial replacement of the organic components of the artificial, for example, replacing valves, large vessels, atria, ventricles. It should also be noted that quite successfully performed a transplant donor hearts? In addition to cardio-surgery, there is a medico-psychological aspect of the problem of an artificial heart. For example, a quarter of patients after surgery prosthetic valvular in the postoperative period formed a specific psychopathological symptoms, received the name Skumin syndrome described in 1978. It is possible that a similar problem will be faced in conducting large-scale operations to implant an artificial heart."
More in fiction
Replacement of real heart as a movable and portable instead of real
This section appears to be in broken English. "Difference between typical heart application is that this is portable heart inserted instead of real non-functioning." What does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The entire article needs to be rewritten
I agree with this statement whole-heartedly (sorry). The article is repetivite and has a lot of spurious and disordered information - is it worth organising the whole thing chronologically? Yunadal (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This article contains so many factual errors that I couldn't even begin to correct it without re-writing the entire thing. Not to mention that the grammar is awful enough to make a 2nd grade teacher cringe. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)