Far from being the first
artificial heart we've seen, the latest iteration unveiled by a team of French scientists is easily the most sophisticated. Built from technology used in satellites and airplanes, the prototype heart is said to "beat almost exactly like the real thing using electronic sensors to regulate heart rate and blood flow." Reportedly, the device boasts "the same tiny sensors that measure air pressure and altitude in an airplane or satellite," enabling it to theoretically react in an instant if the patient suddenly needs more or less blood. Thus far, the heart has only been tested in animals, and now gurus behind it are hoping to net approval from authorities in order to forge ahead with clinical trials. Of course, a "lifelike" heart made from polymer and pig tissue won't come cheap, with initial pricing estimates putting it just south of 200 grand. Or, just enough to give you a heart attack.
[Via
DailyTech, image courtesy of AP; thanks, Allislost]
posted Nov 2nd 2008 12:07PM
Wall-E? Is that you?
Wall-E/Eve baby.
Sorry to hijack the first comment, but I think there are one too many from froms in the first sentence.
Does this mean the person will live forever?
It means that a robotic Jesus is well under way.
I'm working on a way to use your own stem cells to grow a second heart on your back. After it is mature, it is then transplanted and replaces your old worn out heart. When it is first transplanted, it will require a pacemaker until the nerves can grow in so it can beat based on the signals from your brain.
I'd by that for a dollar!
Here is something you don't want to be beta tester of.
Seems like animals have already Alpha tested this thing.
Why not?
If it were an alpha test I wouldn't want to, but a beta...oh man...it'll probably work good enough. Plus there's 200g's you don't have to spend on it if you were in need of one...
True, but will they update it for free to the final version??
I'm only posting here because I don't want to get pushed down by the political bullshit right now. I'm just seriously sick of the whole thing by now.
Anyway, I seem to recall an artificial heart that simply pushed the blood through rather than "beating" and it apparently had no adverse affects. It seemed a lot less complicated and allowed for a much smaller mechanism in general as it simply used a standard fluid pump to keep the blood circulating. Does anyone else recall hearing about this? I seem to remember it being mentioned in Reader's Digest, but haven't heard of anything since then.
Sure, the lack of heartbeat would be unnerving, but you could always rig something up to generate an artificial heartbeat that had no effect on the actual blood flow.
unless beta testing gets you one for free. saving 200 grand might be worth the risk...
So, the Jarvik 7 was implanted some twenty six years ago and people think this is totally new?
Does that include installation?
Thats where they get'cha.
Remember Robocop? This is the precursor of the all new Yamaha Heart!
Coming next: SPF 9000 sunscreen and the SUX car.
If Obama gets elected you'll get a $192k discount on it though!!
So who will be paying for it then? Or can obama just manifest these hearts out of thin air?
Only the tax payer will end up paying that $192K. Despite what Obama claims I don’t think it’s “fair” that the tax payer should have to pay the costs when somebody decides to clog up their arteries by eating fatty food all their life. The tax payer will also be paying for lung operations on people who smoke 50 a day, which again doesn’t seem very fair to me. If you want to smoke or eat fatty food you should have to pay the costs yourself.
Still, if you think "free" healthcare is a good idea come here to the UK and ask people what they think of the service they get on the NHS.
Universal health care makes the relationship with your doctor so impersonal. With "free" doctor visits it would takes weeks to get an appointment. Doctors would get paid less, to do more, and there would be a good chance that the quality of health care would decrease.
Ya, all those supporters always point to Canada's system of healthcare. Yet, they never mention the fact that you have to wait six months for a MRI. But hey, cancer can just wait that long too, right?
That's why Canadians are coming to the US for private healthcare.
The NHS can be bad at times, but that's true of just about any organisation. I'd rather have them than not, they did bring me into the world after all.
I've always thought it strange that the US don't have a similar system, but then I remember they think it's a good idea for the general public to have guns, so that's the least of their worries.
It's good to see you have all done your research through political opinions. As someone who moved to the US from Canada. I can honestly say I've waited longer in the ER in the US than in Canada. I know my doctor less than my Canadian Doctor. Mostly because my original doctor stopped taking insurance and I can't afford to see him anymore. And despite what you think you are already paying for the uninsured. Hospitals don't do anything for free so if the uninsured don't pay for it, we do. That's why the cost of Medicine is higher in the US than every other first world nation that supports their people. We also pay for the uninsured when they lose their jobs because they don't show up for work because they are too sick. They clog up our ERs in time and money with something that could have been fixed if they could afford health care. They end up on unemployment costing us more in taxes. Really for overly religious country, it is amazing how little you care for your fellow man. And money hungry nation, it's amazing how blind you are to the real cost of your broken health care.
And I'll save anyone from asking. I moved here out of boredom. Other than getting married, I regret moving here everyday.
@THizzle, that's a lie commonly espoused by universal health care opponents. Fact is, if you have a serious or life-threatening condition you are fast-tracked and there is no waiting period.
@Charles, how is this different from the way insurance companies do it now? People with massive medical bills don't see their premiums go half a million dollars. The money comes from the premiums of other people who don't have massive medical bills. The money doesn't just come from thin air. The money I and my employer pay for my insurance goes to cover the bills of others since I don't use as much money as I pay in. The only difference is that the insurance company is out to make a profit (usually a huge profit) but a truly government run health care system (which is unfortunately not what Obama is campaigning on) would not.
Let me quote someone:
Obama's gonna tax the crap out of rich people like buisness owners who are gonna make up for lost income by jacking up prices and lowering employee wages. That means everybody gets hurt and vulnerable to government big-brotherism. But you can't have complete totalitarianism without taking away civilians' right to own a gun. Once that's abolished, the government can swoop in whenever it wants and control every aspect of our lives. If that sounds like fun, vote for [Joseph] Stalin Obama.
The reason people to work hard and accomplice stuff is the potential to get rich. If you're gonna get most of your money taken away by the government and given to poor people, why not be a bum and let the government take care of you?
Source:http://forums.benheck.com/viewtopic.php?t=26319&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105Note:
"Stalin" striked out. Engadget can't strike out comments.
Uh, the US is like 50th in the world in healthcare, and that stat reflects both general health and satisfaction of patients. Canada and other "socialist" countries like Sweden are ranked far above us, so stop pulling figures out of your asses and being selfish sociopaths.
And, just so I'm not pulling figures out of /my/ ass, here's some proof.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
We're 37th. We're behind Costa Rica, Morocco, and Andorra. We are one single place above Slovenia. If that isn't proof that we need massive healthcare reform, I don't know what is.
"The reason people to work hard and accomplice stuff is the potential to get rich."
That's a very selfish view of work, doing things for you and you only.
"why not be a bum and let the government take care of you?"
Because some of us would like to have some self respect, and contribute not just to our own personal worth but to society too.
Many people fail to see the real danger of national health care...
Its not the cost associated, although this is scary. It is not the quality of the service, although this is questionable. It is the power that the government is given over you.
In nationalized health care systems the government has a legitimate reason to control what you eat, how you exercise, what you do with your free time, ect. The government will force you to start taking preventive medications and will strictly control your diet to ensure that their costs are lowest.
People who don't smoke will complain about those that do... because now they have to pay for them.
People that don't skate board will complain about those that do... because now they have to pay for their injuries.
Don't you see the problem with this?
There are many other ways to fix the current problems we have. Increasing the size, scope, and power of the government is certainly not one of them. Despite their best efforts they always lead to waist, corruption, and failure. I certainly believe that everyone has a moral obligation to help those in need, but I do not believe the government has the legal (nor should it) authority to force people to help those in need. Charities flourish when government is limited.
Government regulation and intervention in a free market breads opportunity for special interest (read: big companies) to gain unfair power. I firmly believe in the teachings of Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman, George Washingon, John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith that "The power to do good is also the power to do harm." To add to what Adam Smith said about people who pursue their interest inadvertently promote public interest, Milton Friedman said "In the government sphere, as in the market, these seems to be an invisible hand, but it operate in precisely the opposite direction from Adam Smith's: an individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private interests, "which was no part of his intention."
>> Charles, how is this different from the way insurance companies do it now?
If you smoke you pay much higher health insurance premiums or frequently insurers will refuse to take on at all. With "free" healthcare you pay the same tax regardless of your lifestyle and leave other tax payers to pick up the bill. I don't see how it's fair that others should have to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle.
Besides, if universal healthcare turns out anything the same as it has in the UK you'll have to pay private medical insurance on top of your higher taxes. The only way to get treatment here is to go private.
Don't use that free market argument, the free market is a thing of the past. Big corporations already rely on the government for tax breaks and subsidies, if you don't give them money they'll get it from the government under the guise of saving the economy. So if the big corporations you hate so much are getting all that money from the government, what's stopping you? Besides, if you're unable to take off your tinfoil hat, it's not like private healthcare is going to become illegal overnight. This isn't some government conspiracy to control your brain with flu shots, it's a way to better the lives of private citizens who are desperately uninsured and in need medical guidance and care.
@Paul
"Don't you see the problem with this?"
So you are saying American obesity and cancer rates would be forced to decline...
...yes, I see how that would be terrible.
???
well everyone is already buying into a pool of shared risk by having any type of health insurance. you are already subsidizing the fat guy with impending heart failure, or the young girl who just got hit by a car, or the baby with down's syndrome. by nationalizing health care you are simply combining all the pools of risk so that you have more shared safety. also this lets the country pick up uninsurables- i.e. the ones who are so sick they can't get a job to afford insurance. yes this means you will reluctantly be helping out a fellow citizen.
the point of insurance is that it protects you against costs of unforeseen disease. someday you are going to need emergent health care and if you are upset about helping the guy who eats too many fries then someday i hope you are turned away from life-saving chemotherapy for your unforeseen cancer, or don't qualify for healthcare after you lose your job from developing huntington's.
those of you that think Obama wants universal healthcare are morons...try reading his plan. Driving down costs to make healthcare more affordable and letting you keep your private coverage are mainstays of his plan.
@Paul
Quote
--------
Many people fail to see the real danger of national health care...
Its not the cost associated, although this is scary. It is not the quality of the service, although this is questionable. It is the power that the government is given over you.
In nationalized health care systems the government has a legitimate reason to control what you eat, how you exercise, what you do with your free time, ect. The government will force you to start taking preventive medications and will strictly control your diet to ensure that their costs are lowest.
People who don't smoke will complain about those that do... because now they have to pay for them.
People that don't skate board will complain about those that do... because now they have to pay for their injuries.
----
Well this is just ridiculous. I live in a European country with national health care. All around us are other countries with the same national health care. And guess what? Government doesn't force us to start taking preventive medications. Government doesn't control our diet. People don't complain about smokers or skateboarders. Actually, people are glad that everybody gets the healthcare and people aren't such a bunch of selfish materialistic snobs you think them to be (but then again, I was never in America so I don't know how it is there). It's easier (at least for us Europeans) to live free of worries when you know that you, your friends, your family and cousins and everybody you know won't have to go through hell if they somehow get into a situation where they need healthcare but can't pay for it. And I'll gladly pay some more tax even for those people who would otherwise have to die because they smoked too much or were careless in any other way, than be a selfish moron who thinks they all deserve to die, but at the same time lives every day in fear that if he gets some minor problems with his health, he'll have to put one more mortgage on his home.
@James T
Its just our culture. We are scared of anything new because new equals communism :)
Look at everything our country is, god forbid that anything go against the uber holy constitution. We still believe everything said there applies to todays world and that all the concepts of 300 plus years ago are better than the newly formed ones. Welcome to Americana, leave your trust at the door.
The WHO data accusing the US of being 37th is severely biased by many factors, not the least of which is the fact that the US has an extremely higher concentration of overweight people who don't exercise and have diabetes (requiring dialysis and other expensive ong-term therapies) and other illnesses related to letting their bodies go. Also we spend far more on end-of-life care than other countries do. If your argument is that socialized medicine will reduce obesity, diabetes, mothers who use crack during pregnancy, and other societal ills, then maybe you have a point, although there is no evidence of that and in fact many of these other countries are now starting to go down the "physique by McDonalds" path we have already taken. I see socialized medicine as a mechanism by which congress will assure themselves more lobbying and re-election fund dollars by controlling yet more of the US economy. They will have the power to pass the loopholes, tax incentives, and industry-specific legislation that will grease their palms for decades - all said legislation to expire in 1 years time, to ensure the flow of lobbying dollars next year and the next year and the next. Witness the complexity and bizarreness of Medicare/Medicaid - that is what US socialized medicine will be. Witness how congress year after year passes a delay to Medicare reimbursement cuts, only after sufficient lobbying money from medical groups has bloated them for the given year. The solution is congressional term limits, but somehow I don't think that is going to be popular with these career politicians.
I don't know what's going on with you people in USA..
As you see countries with Social Health System because that's how is called and NOT massive seem to have bigger life expectancy.
I don't know why are so afraid of the world Social. Socialism is something like a taboo for you people ! No kidding !
Socialism is NOT THE SAME as Communism.
In fact they are faaar much different...
but I don't blame you with all this propaganda that they feed you
and all this real luck of studying and understating of how these systems work.
hmmm, quite a long list of comments here ..
i don't personally like participating in futile arguments that are not likely to benefit anyone. however, i do feel like i have to point out a number of points regarding the Health system in the UK.
first, let me point out that i am a medical student in the UK and despite knowing a thing or two about the health system here, i would NOT describe myself as the best person to ask about health policy here. another thing is, while i do live in the UK, i am actually an american, but since i moved away from the states at a young age, i can't really say i know much about the health system in the states besides what people normally end up reading or hearing.
@Charles
Cigarettes here in the UK are Bloody expensive, you'd have to be crazy to buy them, but people here still do. only around 25% of the price actually goes towards cost and profit. the rest -around 75%- goes towards taxes. while smokers do tend to end up needing quite a good bit of health care through their lives -more then your average joe- the fact remains that they unfortunately die earlier and so can't make use of all the money they contributed in taxes. the government actually benefits from smokers, not the other way around.
you also get *preventative* taxes on alcohol and such.
@Paul
Governments controlling your diet, exercise and forcing medication on you is indeed a disturbing prospect. but am afraid i can't really think of any country that actually does that. could you please tell me which of those "social health system" countries actually does that? while here in the UK they do encourage regular Blood pressure checkups, cholesterol levels and all sort of screening programs *treating disease early reduces costs, so its cheaper for the NHS and better for the patient*, none of it is mandatory.
as cmaceachen and lee mentioned earlier, even health insurance companies have you join a pool of shared risk.
personally, the only difference i can think of, is that health insurance companies take money from that collective for profit and try their best to decline medical care by claiming that the condition isn't covered or other excuses.
plus, while the NHS is tax backed Health system, you can still attend private hospital with health insurance if you want.
am open towards other peoples opinion, and would be thankful if you pointed out something you believe i might have misunderstood. :)
sorry for talking too long :)
Funny how you people don't complain if bush creates a fascist state for real but are all up in a huff about a state that is only envisionable in your mind based on a wild fantasy that clearly is impossible to achieve even if obama was as evil as cheney (remember that guy? you don't mind him using your tax money for his hobby: being evil) and as smart as, uhm, I'm drawing a blank here.
In a similar vein: be sure to kick a puppy, because if you don't they grow up and then they breed and then there are so many you run out of bullets if they all attack you and then they bite off your hand and then the commies come and take your land because you can't defend yourself because you didn't kick a puppy and then they ruin apple's business and then there's no iphones and not even zunes :o.
I hope that's not the actual thing, because it's gigantic.
Still, I guess it beats dying.
"...beats dying"
I see what you did there....
Was this made for a sumo wrestler?
Who knows the doctor holding it isn't a midget? C'mon, everything is relative.
just think of it as a 1st gen laptop/ipod/any evolving electronic...
in a couple years, it'll be small and efficient.
that's how big they are in real life!
@lee
You're saying that's how big a heart is? Your heart is roughly the size of your fist. That's definitely larger than his fist.
i sure hope my health insurance covers that...
We are coming closer and closer to a better hart than the "original".
If harts become independant of external support, it could be a good standard replacement. Cyborgs rise.
Less chance of diseases, better sustained heartrate, use kevlar or titanium to make it stab/bulletproof.
Creepy. But wth our next evolution hopefully solves that for us.
Isn't a hart a kind of deer?
We
Interesting. I tried to make a "We Heart Borg" joke, but the comment system seems to choke on angle brackets.
Doesn't choke, it strips HTML
No, we're not. Our scientific progress isn't even in the same galaxy as the "original." The human heart is a precision orchestration of muscle and nerves that performs exactly the same way over 100,000 per day for up to 100 years without a single second of failure.
We don't manufacture anything that comes anywhere close to that, particularly in terms of longevity. The current most successful artificial heart -- the AbioCor -- has an estimated lifespan of 1-2 years. It delays, but does not prevent, imminent death due to incurable coronary failure.
To be sure, these are incredible advances, but we are lightyears from any permanent mechanical replacement for a biological heart.
But does it have 3 HDMI ports?
no, but it actually has 4 HDMV ports between the Atriums and the Ventricles....
Heart Digitized Man-made Valve
for some reason, i just want to poke that thing repeatedly.
With your finger I hope.
It has four holes to "poke." You should get a couple friends to help you.
Does it play Doom?
I don't even want to know what it feels like when your heart suddenly feels like playing 'Doom'.
It prevents doom.
Can it avert a crisis?
Post implantation, will it blend?
Typo!!!!!
"From from being the first artificial heart....."
sorry for bustin chops, but those things get my goat
Does it help with erectile dysfunction?
No. Looks like you're shit out of luck Paul.
No matter how much they try they cant beat a good old heart.
Though this thing looks like it belongs under the hood of my car.
Agreed.
I'm holding off until they get Linux running on it.
Expect to die then.
Smileypanda's chances aren't better with the heart running Windows.
No, just expect your left pinkie finger to stop working. Of course there's a 60 page command-prompt based walk through to fix it, but you're still convincing yourself you don't really need your left pinkie anyway.
"Male, 61, death by cardiac kernel panic"
I don't want anything to do with pig tissue in my body
Because you've never eaten a sausage or bacon?
Actually, funnily enough, pig tissue is close enough to human tissue that it's far less prone to rejection than other replacement materials. Pig valves and even ligaments are frequently used in people who've had cardiovascular or skeletomuscular problems. It's pretty cool, I think.
I'm not gonna pay a lot for this muffler.
put Apple logo on it, i'll buy it in a heartbeat.
sure if my heart still beating.
And in other news, Dick Cheny is now doing reasearch on finding a replacement for his heart so he can live long enough to see John McCain get into office...whenever that might be.
AKBlade13
Hope Sony doesn't recall the battery. I don't want my heart to explode.
In the healthcare world, 192K is dirt cheap. How much would it cost to support someone if this heart wasn't available?
How much would it cost to support a dead person?
Stop smoking, break out that bicycle, & put down that bucket of deep fried chicken. Most people are lucky enough to have a healthy heart.
spend that other $191,801 on usefull things.
spend the rest on the iPhone...
Or that Aston Vantage you just happen to walk past everyday to work.
Is it just me or does that look like a steampunk version of Gonzo?
what size human were they thinking of putting that brick in.
I wonder how it deals with infection.
This post was pretty funny.
Does it run Crysis?????
Is it just me or does that artificial heart look twice the size of a human heart.
I tried using the AIM login button instead of the traditional login and some reason it changed my sn of "BaozerIsTehSecks" to "Jizz Factory."
Is it just me or does Engadget need to fix their comment system.
Engadget uses a blog system made by 3rd parties don't they? It is they who need to fix their stuff.
Is that Valve's half-life3? will it be available on steam?
Will it blend? That is the question.
That thing is huge. Where do you put the healthy lungs?
Wall-E's snorkle.
I WOULD LOVE TO STICK MY DICK INTO ONE OF THOSE HOLES!
Does a heart really need to beat? Can't you maintain a steady flow using something like a screw pump?
Now THAT is an orgy of biomedical engineering.
how pretty. In a utilitarian sense, i suppose.
but hey, its beats(get it) having no heart beat at all, even if you are still living. I think the preference for a full systole/diastole cycle is more cellular than personal. I think the body just likes the rhythm.