ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2018
Manufacturing Better Outcomes in Cardiovascular Intervention: 3D Printing in Clinical Practice Today.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Legal issues and underexplored data protection in medical 3D printing: A scoping review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional printing for plastic preparation of medical interventions.Der Radiologe · 2020Review
- Advanced Medical Use of Three-Dimensional Imaging in Congenital Heart Disease: Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, Virtual Reality, and Three-Dimensional Printing.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Over-the-wire deployment techniques of option elite inferior vena cava filter: 3D printing vena cava phantom study.European journal of radiology open · 2020Article
- Comparison of 3-Dimensional and Augmented Reality Kidney Models With Conventional Imaging Data in the Preoperative Assessment of Children With Wilms Tumors.JAMA network open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewDescribe and evaluate the integration of 3D printing-related innovations into current cardiovascular treatment paradigms and examine the state of regulatory and reimbursement hurdles ahead. RECENT
findingsMounting years of clinical experience have established the utility of printed models of patient anatomy in numerous treatment and teaching scenarios, most notably as pre- and intra-procedural planning tools guiding decision-making for congenital heart disease and catheter-based interventions. In part due to a continued lack of reimbursement and under-defined (and slow to evolve) regulatory status, these use cases remain largely investigational even as they grow increasingly routine. Patients, physicians, and/or imaging centers therefore remain burdened by the associated cost to create such models, and the perceptual and decision-making enhancements, while demonstrable and significant, still may not clearly or independently justify a potentially high cost. Simulation and implantable device applications may represent a deeper well of unrealized value in cardiovascular intervention; however, further development of these applications relies on-and is throttled by-progress in material science and tissue-engineering research. The relevance of simulation applications in recent years is also now in competition with digital analogs including augmented and virtual reality. Innovative incorporation of alternative manufacturing processes such as porous scaffold infusion, injection molding, and vascular mesh forming can provide immediate access to more realistic tissue-mimicking materials and custom implantable devices, while comparable and directly printable materials continue to be developed. Tissue-engineering applications remain years if not decades away from a more substantive role in translatable clinical research. Regulatory challenges associated with in-house manufacture of implantable investigational devices are complex and subject to change, and the success of some in navigating these hurdles in non-cardiovascular applications is instructive and encouraging. Complex geometries characterizing cardiovascular anatomy are an ideal use case for translating the perceptual advantages of printed models of patient anatomy into better decision-making, especially so in the setting of congenital or post-surgical anatomy. Procedural planning applications take further advantage of the demonstrably robust dimensional reproduction of patient anatomy, with notably rapid integration into surgical and catheter-based intervention workflows. Despite a continued lack of codification in the healthcare system, 2018 could be a milestone year for 3D printing services, pending a successful application for a CPT Category III designation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30361896What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.