Maglev titanium heart inside the chest of a live patient
A new titanium, magnetically levitated artificial heart implanted in a human patient is prompting both awe at the engineering feat and questions about its limitations. Commenters examine why such devices are currently used only as temporary bridges to transplants, citing durability, blood damage, clot risk, lack of a natural pulse, dependence on external power, and complex control software. They also weigh this approach against alternatives like xenotransplantation and lab-grown organs, and reflect on broader ethical and philosophical issues around cyborg-like body modifications and the goal of surpassing—or merely repairing—human biology.
Device basics & weight
- Artificial heart uses a dual centrifugal “maglev” rotor, likely similar to slice-motor/bearingless pumps used in industry.
- Another article cited in the thread pegs device weight at ~650 g, perceived as heavy but comparable to the density of a real heart.
- It is powered via an external driveline exiting the chest to a 4 kg controller pack with two ~5‑hour batteries, or wall power.
- Not the first maglev blood pump: similar technology exists in LVADs, Impella, and industrial “wet rotor” pumps; here the novelty is total artificial heart use.
Temporary bridge vs permanent solution
- Current positioning is as a bridge to transplant, not a lifelong replacement.
- Reasons discussed: blood damage (shear, pressure, heat), clot and thrombosis risk, need for long-term anticoagulation, and stasis zones in pump geometries.
- Mechanical failure is catastrophic (“if it dies, you die”), whereas biological hearts often fail gradually with warning.
- External power and drivelines impose infection risk and lifestyle limitations.
Pulsatile vs continuous flow
- Base mode is continuous flow with no valves and no pulse; newer work adds speed modulation to simulate a heartbeat.
- Concerns: the body evolved for pulsatile flow; arteries, valves, lymph, and possibly neurology may depend on it.
- Reported issues with non-pulsatile devices include GI arteriovenous malformations and “pump head”–type effects.
- Others note that capillary flow is often modeled as steady, so the long-term necessity of a pulse remains an open question.
Control software, reliability, and safety
- Rotor position is actively controlled via sensors and electromagnetic actuators adjusting many times per second.
- This is seen as high-stakes embedded software; questions raised about what happens in a rotor “crash,” but details are unclear.
- Comparison made to aviation: airliners aim for dual-fault tolerance, while even Class III implants are only required to be single-fault tolerant.
Surgical integration
- Connection to arteries uses “sewing cuffs” and short synthetic grafts (e.g., polyester velour, silicone), sutured in place.
- Bioglue may be used sparingly to fix minor suture issues but not as the primary attachment method.
Ethics, alternatives, and human enhancement
- Debate over xenograft pig hearts vs artificial hearts; some expect xenografts to advance faster, others prefer non-animal solutions.
- Animal welfare and vegan perspectives appear but are considered lower priority until reliable artificial organs exist.
- Some are enthusiastic about a gradual move toward “cyborg” bodies; others argue human biology is already highly optimized and favor regeneration/bioengineering over permanent mechanical replacement.
Living without a pulse
- Patients with continuous-flow pumps reportedly have no palpable pulse, which can confuse first responders and requires explicit communication (tattoos and device signaling are suggested).
- People speculate about psychological and systemic effects, and whether any subtle body processes are “clocked” off the heartbeat, but data is limited and long-term impacts remain unclear.