ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative evaluation of two autotransfusion devices in a 72h survival swine model of surgically induced controlled splenic bleeding.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autotransfusion is a key strategy in hemorrhagic surgical procedures, reducing risks like disease transmission and immunosuppression due to allogenic transfusion. While conventional devices efficiently process red blood cells by centrifugation, they don't address complications requiring additional platelet transfusions. The innovative same™ device (i-SEP, France), utilizing hollow-fiber filtration, preserves both red blood cells and platelets without damaging cell integrity. This study designed as a prospective randomized controlled trial compared cell concentration and washout performances of two autotransfusion devices, a preclinical version of same™, the conventional centrifugation-based Xtra® (LivaNova, UK); and effects of retransfusion versus no transfusion in 21 Yucatan minipigs submitted to a surgically induced controlled splenic bleeding. Animals were divided into three groups (no-transfusion control group, same group and xtra group) and monitored postoperatively for 72 hours during which serial animal blood samples were collected for hematologic, biochemical and coagulation analyses and tests. Both autotransfusion devices showed high performances in red blood cell yields and concentrations, with a significant superiority of same™ device to preserve platelets. Animals from same and xtra groups retrieved similar rheological profiles and maintained a normal hematocrit compared to no-transfusion control animals. Coagulation profiles stayed within normal range in all groups. No adverse event on animals nor post-mortem sign of thrombosis were identified on autotransfused animals. The same™ device that can therefore be considered as an interesting alternative to conventional centrifugation-based devices. Further experiments are needed to provide evidence of platelets autotransfusion benefits in massive hemorrhagic procedures.
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.