Key result
3D-printed blood pumps cause higher hemolysis compared to conventionally manufactured benchmark pumps.
Why the study?
The variability of 3D-printed rotodynamic blood pump indicators is a crucial factor in haemocompatibility evaluation, prompting an investigation into the reproducibility of a 3D print-based framework for systematic studies when changing key impeller parameters.
Does a 3D-printed rotodynamic blood pump framework provide reproducible normalized index of haemolysis and pressure head measurements compared to a conventionally manufactured benchmark RBP in an in vitro setting?
Does a 3D-printed rotodynamic blood pump framework provide reproducible normalized index of haemolysis and pressure head measurements compared to a conventionally manufactured benchmark RBP in an in vitro setting?
A 3D-printed experimental framework demonstrates comparable reproducibility in haemolysis and pressure head standard deviations to conventional manufacturing, offering an economic and rapid method for systematic in vitro haemocompatibility testing of rotodynamic blood pumps.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Variability in NIH across 3D-printed RBPs warrants caution before clinical translation; leaves open need for standardized protocols in haemocompatibility research.
Objective Variability of 3D‐printed rotodynamic blood pumps (RBP) indicators is a crucial factor in haemocompatibility evaluation. Thus, the aim is to investigate the reproducibility of a 3D printed‐based framework for further use on systematic haemocompatible studies when changing key impeller parameters in RBPs. Methods Reproducibility was assessed in terms of standard deviation (SD), of the normalized index of haemolysis (NIH) and generated pressure head between 3 RBPs. A conventionally manufactured benchmark RBP, one 3D printed (3DP) exact replica, (), and one 3DP with a modification () ( n = 7). In vitro haemolysis experiments were carried out. Newly 3DP impellers were used for each experiment to study the manufacturing reproducibility. Moreover, pressure head‐flow rate curve analysis and computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations were performed to support the findings. Results The mean NIH ± SD in mg/100 L for the 3 RBPs was 4.25 ± 1.95 for the benchmark, 6.40 ± 2.68 for the exact replica, and 7.75 ± 1.87 for the modified version. Only a significant difference ( p < 0.05) between the benchmark and modified version was found. Conversely, no strong statistical differences were found between the 3DP RBPs. Furthermore, SD values of pressure heads were similar between all the groups. The resulting damage index for the 3DP geometries was 2.37 (·10 −4 ) and 2.32 (·10 −4 ) for the replica and modified version respectively. Suggesting a probable small effect when variating in free stream pumps. Conclusions Same NIH and pressure head SD range has shown the viability of the 3DP experimental framework, proposing an economic and rapid path for systematic haemocompatibility studies of parameters in RBPs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suria et al. (2026) studied Haemocompatibility in rotodynamic blood pumps (n=7). 3D-printed rotodynamic blood pumps (exact replica and modified version) vs. Conventionally manufactured benchmark rotodynamic blood pump was evaluated on Normalized index of haemolysis (NIH, mg/100 L) and generated pressure head (p=<0.05). 3D-printed rotodynamic blood pumps showed mean NIH of 6.40 (replica) and /100 L (modified) vs /100 L for the benchmark.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: