ArticlePediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2025
In vitro measurements of ultrafiltration precision in hemofiltration and hemodialysis devices used in infants, Part 2: Comparison of PrisMax and CARPEDIEM with previous data on NIDUS, Prismaflex and Aquarius.
Article in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Kirpa Kit™ manual hemodialysis device to standard continuous kidney replacement therapy in vitro.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Novel extracorporeal therapies in children.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to determine in vitro whether the PrisMax and CARPEDIEM hemofiltration and hemodialysis devices can reliably deliver ultrafiltration (UF) control that is sufficiently precise to treat infants.
methodsWe have previously measured the precision of UF control of the Prismaflex, Aquarius and NIDUS devices by in vitro testing with a bag of saline set up as a dummy patient, and comparing the differences between the UF set and displayed by the devices, and the actual fluid removal or addition measured by precise weighing. Here we have tested the PrisMax (updated version of Prismaflex) and the CARPEDIEM using the same method.
resultsThe variances of the setting vs. actual errors, and display vs. actual errors after 15 min of 'treatment' with the PrisMax and CARPEDIEM were similar, but were significantly larger than in the NIDUS, and much smaller than in the Prismaflex. However, after a 4-h 'treatment session', the cumulative errors were still within ± 9 mL for these devices, compared with a maximum error of 2.6 mL in the NIDUS, and a deviation of -37.5 mL in the Prismaflex.
conclusionsThe PrisMax and the CARPEDIEM have adequate precision to be used in infants. The only device with UF error below 3 ml in 4 h is the volumetrically-controlled NIDUS. We recommend that regulatory bodies should introduce UF precision-testing for devices intended for use in infants.
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.