Volume 35, Issue 2 pp. 188-191

Cycle Testing of the MagScrew Total Artificial Heart External Battery Pack: Update I

Fernando Casas

Fernando Casas

Lerner Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Stephan Weber

Stephan Weber

Lerner Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Ryan Klatte

Ryan Klatte

Lerner Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Vikash Goel

Vikash Goel

Lerner Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

Search for more papers by this author
William A. Smith

William A. Smith

Lerner Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 18 November 2010
Citations: 1
Dr. Fernando Casas, Cleveland Clinic, Lerner Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering/ND20, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

MagScrew total artificial heart (TAH) external battery pack (EBP) cycle bench testing continued over a period of 18 months using two fresh Wilson Greatbatch lithium ion EBPs during continuous charge and discharge cycles under a simulated TAH system current requirement. The same electronic load developed for our initial testing was used to simulate the MagScrew current waveforms typically observed during nominal operation. The current load profiles for this test were modified from the ones previously described and applied to the EBP under test during a voltage-defined discharge cycle. The test ended when EBP#2 reached end of life at 1450 cycles. At that point, EBP#1 remained healthy with a capacity of 175 min until full discharge. Performance of EBP#2 was still within expected ranges. Performance of EBP#1 exceeded expectations. These differences are probably caused by slight manufacturing changes. More tests will provide additional data to define a statistical distribution to better characterize EBP performance. In conclusion, endurance performance of the EBP remained satisfactory.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.