ArticlePediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2023
Daily practice evaluation of the paediatric set of a next-generation long-term haemodialysis machine.
Article in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Technical requirements and devices available for long-term hemodialysis in children-mind the gap!Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrom 2006 to 2020, 24% of children starting haemodialysis in France weighed < 20 kg. Most new-generation long-term haemodialysis machines do not propose paediatric lines anymore but Fresenius has validated two devices for use in children above 10 kg. Our aim was to compare the daily use of these two devices in children < 20 kg.
methodsRetrospective single-center evaluation of daily practice with Fresenius 6008® machines, and low-volume paediatric sets (83 mL), as compared to 5008® machines with paediatric lines (108 mL). Each child was treated randomly with both generators.
resultsA total of 102 online haemodiafiltration sessions were performed over 4 weeks in five children (median body weight 12.0 [range 11.5-17.0] kg). Arterial aspiration and venous pressures were maintained respectively over - 200 mmHg and under 200 mmHg. For all children, blood flow and volume treated per session were lower with 6008® vs. 5008® (p < 0.001), median difference between the two devices being 21%. In the four children treated in post-dilution mode, substituted volume was lower with 6008® (p < 0.001, median difference: 21%). Effective dialysis time was not different between the two generators; however, the difference between total duration of session and dialysis effective time was slightly higher (p < 0.05) with 6008® for three patients, due to treatment interruptions.
conclusionThese results suggest that children between 11 and 17 kg should be treated with paediatric lines on 5008® if possible. They advocate for modification of the 6008 paediatric set to decrease resistance to blood flow. The possibility to use 6008® with paediatric lines in children below 10 kg deserves further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37099185What 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.