ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2020
Impact of Neurapheresis System on Intrathecal Cerebrospinal Fluid Dynamics: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Study.
Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A 3D non-human primate digital model for pharmacokinetic prediction of intra-cerebrospinal fluid drug neuraxial dispersion.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2025Article
- Iron Hemostasis in Patients With Subarachnoid Hemorrhage and the Role of Early CSF Drainage.Neurology · 2025Review
- Computational and biological modeling of IGF1R inhibition for multifocal medulloblastoma.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- An In Vitro Platform for Pharmacokinetic Quantification and Optimization of Cerebrospinal Fluid Filtration and Drug Circulation.Journal of medical devices · 2025Article
- Red Blood Cells in the Cerebrospinal Fluid Compartment After Subarachnoid Haemorrhage: Significance and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies.Translational stroke research · 2025Review
- Cerebrospinal fluid flushing as a means of neuroprotection.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Translational Approaches for Brain Delivery of Biologics via Cerebrospinal Fluid.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2022Review
- Investigation of Human Intrathecal Solute Transport Dynamics Using a NovelFrontiers in neuroimaging · 2022Article
- In vitro and numerical simulation of blood removal from cerebrospinal fluid: comparison of lumbar drain to Neurapheresis therapy.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2020Article
- Intrathecal catheter implantation decreases cerebrospinal fluid dynamics in cynomolgus monkeys.PloS one · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
It has been hypothesized that early and rapid filtration of blood from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in postsubarachnoid hemorrhage patients may reduce hospital stay and related adverse events. In this study, we formulated a subject-specific computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model to parametrically investigate the impact of a novel dual-lumen catheter-based CSF filtration system, the Neurapheresis™ system (Minnetronix Neuro, Inc., St. Paul, MN), on intrathecal CSF dynamics. The operating principle of this system is to remove CSF from one location along the spine (aspiration port), externally filter the CSF routing the retentate to a waste bag, and return permeate (uncontaminated CSF) to another location along the spine (return port). The CFD model allowed parametric simulation of how the Neurapheresis system impacts intrathecal CSF velocities and steady-steady streaming under various Neurapheresis flow settings ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 ml/min and with a constant retentate removal rate of 0.2 ml/min simulation of the Neurapheresis system were compared to a lumbar drain simulation with a typical CSF removal rate setting of 0.2 ml/min. Results showed that the Neurapheresis system at a maximum flow of 2.0 ml/min increased average steady streaming CSF velocity 2× in comparison to lumbar drain (0.190 ± 0.133 versus 0.093 ± 0.107 mm/s, respectively). This affect was localized to the region within the Neurapheresis flow loop. The mean velocities introduced by the flow loop were relatively small in comparison to normal cardiac-induced CSF velocities.
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.