Previous Next

Feedback Summary

Faculty

We have received useful feedback from our Stanford faculty mentors and project sponsors at Guidant Preclinical R&D.  Dr. Charles Taylor suggested the use of the circuit simulation software, CircuitMaker 2000 for the design of cardiovascular flow systems.  This program again proved useful in designing the circuit to actuate the heart valves. 

Sponsor

When it became clear that it would be difficult to achieve physiologic conditions in all of the branching arteries simultaneously, our sponsors suggested that we develop recommended settings for each target area.  Designers and physicians will only deploy a device in one area of the model (primarily the coronary arteries) at one time and therefore we could compromise the accuracy of flow conditions in the other arteries. This simplified the design of our flow model significantly. They also cautioned us that during the design of the flow model we position the flow restriction valves out of the fluoroscopic field of view.  Additionally, our sponsors were interested to know how the presence of disease sites in the coronary arteries affected the flow rate through the model.  Diseased coronaries are frequently used for device testing and our sponsors will be unable to measure the arterial pressure and velocity in their lab.
Finally our sponsors at Guidant feel that our fluoro-compatible bi-phasic beating heart is sufficiently novel and non-obvious to be patented.

Vendor

We had intended to have our heart model positives manufactured at the Guidant rapid prototyping facility in Temecula, CA but our heart model was very complex and their older stereolithograpy (SLA) equipment could not handle it.  We had similar problem trying to load our files onto FDM in the Stanford Product Realization Lab. Outside vendors quoted us a price for the five heart models that exceeded our entire project budget. Scott McMillan, a representative of Javelin 3D suggested we fabricate our heart mold positives by 3D-printing instead of expensive SLA.  The printed parts, infused with urethane for strength, made excellent mold positives.

Executive Committee feedback

The executive committees were helpful in monitoring the progress of our project. Feedback from the Reliability and Validation committee at the project definition phase of the project ensured that we had established quantitative criterion by which to evaluate the model.  The Technical Resources committee advised us that careful selection of flexible and strong materials for heart walls would be necessary. The Design Review committee cautioned us that synchronizing the flow model with the heart wall motion would not be easy.  The Project Management committee suggested that we develop the flow model and beating heart prototype in parallel given the time available.


Previous Next