ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Impact of three-dimensional imaging and printing on septal myectomy results-single centre's experience.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of 3-dimensional imaging and printing on septal myectomy results.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Reply to H. Daungsupawong et al.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess changes in the results of septal myectomy (SM) following introduction of three-dimensional (3D) imaging and 3D printing in surgical interventions planning and performing in the single-centre settings.
methodsBetween January 2007 and March 2022, 268 consecutive symptomatic patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy and peak pressure gradient at obstruction area ≥50 mmHg underwent conventional SM (n = 112) or SM with heart 3D modelling (n = 156).
resultsFor comparative analysis, we used propensity score matching (PSM) by 14 variables and there were formed group 1PSM (conventional SM, n = 77) and group 2PSM (3D-modelled SM, n = 77). It was noted for group 2PSM: larger mean resected myocardium mass [10.0 (standard deviation 4.3) vs 5.2 (standard deviation 2.7) g], P < 0.001, no mitral valve replacement cases [0 vs 28 (36.4%), P < 0.001], no iatrogenic ventricular septal defects cases [0 vs 6 (7.8%), P = 0.028], lower rate of major complications [6 (7.8%) vs 17 (22.1%), P = 0.011], smaller residual peak systolic gradient at the obstruction level [7.0 (5.0-9.0) vs 11.0 (7.0-16.0) mmHg, P < 0.001]. During the long-term follow-up, it was noted for group 2PSM as compared to group 1PSM: lower 5-year cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events [3.8% (95% confidence interval 0.7-11.7%) vs 16.9% (9.5-26.1%), P = 0.007] and cardiac-related death [3.8% (95% confidence interval 0.7-11.7%) vs 13% (95% confidence interval 6.6-21.6%), P = 0.05].
conclusionsSM based on 3D virtual and printed heart models is more effective than conventional SM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.