Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2016
Membrane versus centrifuge-based therapeutic plasma exchange: a randomized prospective crossover study.
Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of plasmapheresis in treatment of acute fatty liver of pregnancy-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Centrifugal Plasma Exchange Versus Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis in Chronic CIDP: A Randomized Crossover Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Biological Effects, Procedure Times, and Costs-The Lymphoapheresis Study.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2026Trial
- Centrifugation-based plasma exchange overcomes blood flow restriction to rescue hyperviscosity syndrome in IgM-κ multiple myeloma: a case report.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Plasma Exchange in the Elderly: Rare Indications but Good Tolerability.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Plasma Exchange Using Membrane Plasma Separation Across a Broad Spectrum of Indications: An Eight-Year Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Establishing a rural and remote apheresis service in Western New South Wales: the Orange Hospital experience.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Successful Management of Total Plasma Exchange for Hemolytic Cold Agglutinin Disease.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- HemoClear: A Practical and Cost-Effective Alternative to Conventional Convalescent Plasma Retrieval Methods.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2025Review
- Effect of different modes of TPE on the prognosis of hypertriglyceridemic acute pancreatitis: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Anticoagulant regimens for different therapeutic plasma exchange modes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Immunoadsorption and Plasma Exchange are Comparable in Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies or Anti-Glomerular Basement Membrane Removal Kinetics.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Continuous renal replacement therapy and therapeutic plasma exchange in pediatric liver failure.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Therapeutic Plasma Exchange in Certain Immune-Mediated Neurological Disorders: Focus on a Novel Nanomembrane-Based Technology.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Comparison of plasma separation using centrifugation or filtration for MONET lipoprotein apheresis in patients with cardiovascular disease and severe dyslipidemia.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2022Article
- Therapeutic apheresis in kidney diseases: an updated review.Renal failure · 2022Review
- Plasma exchange in the intensive care unit: a narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 2022Review
- Apheresis Efficacy and Tolerance in the Setting of HLA-Incompatible Kidney Transplantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Case Report: Blurred Vision and Eruptive Nevi - Bilateral Diffuse Uveal Melanocytic Proliferation With Mucocutaneous Involvement in a Lung Cancer Patient.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Therapeutic Plasma Exchange Using Membrane Plasma Separation.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2020Review
- Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) for semi-critical neurology presentations in a non-acute neurology set-up: clinical practice and challenges.BMJ neurology open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTherapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is either performed using a highly permeable filter with standard multifunctional renal replacement equipment (mTPE) or a centrifugation device (cTPE). Although both techniques are well established in clinical practice, performance of these two modes of TPE was never compared in a prospective randomized fashion. Thus we aimed to compare two commercially available therapeutic apheresis systems: mTPE (Octonova with Plasmaflo filter) and cTPE (Spectra Optia apheresis system).
methodsTwenty-one patients (age 51.6 ± 13.5 years; 10 F/11 M; BMI 25.1 ± 5.0 kg/m(2)) were enrolled in this randomized, prospective, paired, crossover study performed in the Hannover Medical School, Germany. First treatment (either mTPE or cTPE) was chosen by an online randomization list. The primary endpoints were plasma removal efficiency with 1.2× of the total plasma volume exchanged. Secondary endpoints were total amount of plasma substances removed, such as IgG and fibrinogen. Further, the treatment effect on platelet count and complications were evaluated.
resultsDespite a comparable volume of the processed plasma, mTPE treatment time was 10.5 % longer than cTPE treatment time (p < 0.05), resulting in a 10 % lower plasma removal rate of the mTPE treatment. Both treatments were comparable in terms of decrease in median (IQR) IgG [pre-mTPE 5.34 (3.48-8.37), post-mTPE 1.96 (1.43-2.84) g/L; pre-cTPE 5.88 (3.42-8.84), post-cTPE 1.89 (1.21-3.52) g/L]. Also the median (IQR) amount of IgG removed in mTPE [13.14 (7.42-16.10) g] was not different from the cTPE treatment [9.30 (6.26-15.69) g]. This was also true for IgM removal. Platelet loss during mTPE was nearly twice as much as with cTPE (15 ± 9 versus 7 ± 9 %, p < 0.05).
conclusionAlthough the centrifugal procedures were conducted using flow rates that could easily be obtained using peripheral access, plasma removal efficiency was significantly higher and treatment time was significantly lower in cTPE as compared to mTPE. Despite this lower treatment time, the decline in markers of procedure efficacy was comparable. Especially in centers performing many procedures per year, cTPE in contrast to mTPE can reduce treatment time without compromising treatment efficacy.
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.