Citations

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM), commonly referred to as 3D printing, has been broadly used in the field of medical imaging and radiotherapy. In medical imaging applications, patient‐specific anatomic models have been used to aid in preoperative planning, patient communication, imaging technique assessment and optimization, and medical education. Within the field of radiation therapy, 3D printing finds significance in fabricating patient‐specific immobilization devices, custom bolus devices, anthropomorphic phantoms, brachytherapy devices, and electron therapy devices. Consistent with standard medical physics practices there is a need to establish quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols, tolerances, and testing frequencies. The diversity of 3D printing technologies and products poses challenges for medical adoption and thus requires guidelines in workflow standardization and establishment of testing procedures. This report is centered around providing comprehensive vendor‐neutral implementation guidelines and recommendations for QC and QA processes. The scope of this report encompasses diverse requirements within medical imaging and radiation therapy settings, serving both clinical and research purposes. Brief overview of 3D printing technology, common materials, and potential clinical applications is provided. QA team, infrastructure, measurement techniques and challenges are discussed. QA processes for each step in 3D printing are discussed in great detail and baseline and action limits are recommended. This report also touched on regulatory considerations. Key recommendations are summarized at the end of the report.

Introduction: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a high burden of comorbidities. To recognize the complex interplay of obesity, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with cardiovascular disease, the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome was recently defined, but data on the burden of CKM in HFpEF is limited. Aim: We sought to describe the prevalence of CKM components in HFpEF leveraging data from control participants in clinical trials and NHANES. Methods: We analyzed data presented in publications from four randomized clinical trials that enrolled participants with HFpEF (all of which are available via NHLBI BioLINCC and will be included in the extant HeartShare dataset): TOPCAT, RELAX, NEAT-HFpEF, and INDIE. We abstracted baseline demographic and clinical variables from study publications to define CKM components (e.g., body mass index [BMI], diabetes status, hypertension, CKD status). We compared prevalence of CKM in these trials with a representative sample of US adults with self-reported history of heart failure (HF) from NHANES 2011-2018. Results: We included 1937 patients with HFpEF from four trials with enrollment between 2006-2016 and 715 adults representing 5.6 million adults aged ≥40 years with a self-report of HF between 2011-2018 from NHANES ( Table ). Mean age was similar among enrolled trial participants with HFpEF and those with HF in NHANES (~68-69 years). Mean BMI was in the obesity range and was similar among trial participants with HFpEF and HF in NHANES (31-35 kg/m 2 ). A significant proportion of individuals had hypertension in HFpEF trials (>80%) and in the NHANES sample with HF (89%). The proportion of stage ≥ 3 CKD in HFpEF trials (≥ 37%) was similar to the NHANES sample with HF (37%). Results are shown in Table . Conclusions: Patients with HFpEF enrolled in clinical trials and those with HF in general population are significantly enriched with CKM components that may contribute to morbidity and mortality. Similar prevalence estimates were observed despite variability in trial inclusion criteria and heterogeneity in defining HFpEF and highlight CKM as a central target for HFpEF management.