International journal of cardiology · 2022
3D printing for left atrial appendage closure: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
DeCampos Diana, Teixeira Rogério, Saleiro Carolina, Oliveira-Santos Manuel, Paiva Luis, Costa Marco, Botelho Ana, Gonçalves Lino
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional printing (3D) has emerged as an alternative to imaging to guide left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device sizing.
AIMS: We assessed the usefulness of 3D printing compared to a standard imaging-only approach for LAAC.
METHODS: We identified studies comparing an imaging-only with a 3D printing approach in LAAC. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed targeting a co-primary endpoint of disagreement in device sizing and leaks.
RESULTS: Eight studies that assigned 283 participants to an imaging-only approach and 3D printing approach (145 patients) were included. 3D printing significantly reduced the risk of the co-primary endpoint (risk raio (RR) = 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.37), with consistency across the studies (I2 = 0%). Individually, both device size disagreements [RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.06-0.29), P < 0.001] and leaks [RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09-0.64) P = 0.004] were reduced under a 3D printing modeling strategy.
CONCLUSION: Compared with an imaging-only strategy, 3D printing is associated with reduction in device size disagreements and leaks.
AIMS: We assessed the usefulness of 3D printing compared to a standard imaging-only approach for LAAC.
METHODS: We identified studies comparing an imaging-only with a 3D printing approach in LAAC. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed targeting a co-primary endpoint of disagreement in device sizing and leaks.
RESULTS: Eight studies that assigned 283 participants to an imaging-only approach and 3D printing approach (145 patients) were included. 3D printing significantly reduced the risk of the co-primary endpoint (risk raio (RR) = 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.37), with consistency across the studies (I2 = 0%). Individually, both device size disagreements [RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.06-0.29), P < 0.001] and leaks [RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09-0.64) P = 0.004] were reduced under a 3D printing modeling strategy.
CONCLUSION: Compared with an imaging-only strategy, 3D printing is associated with reduction in device size disagreements and leaks.