ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Change in composition of blood after passing through circuit of automated device versus manual clinical method for neonatal exchange transfusions.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We previously developed and published a novel device to automate double volume exchange transfusions (DVET) via the umbilical venous catheter (UVC) in neonates. Prior to initiating clinical trials, we aimed to demonstrate that alterations in blood composition after passage through our device's circuit were not greater than those seen with the conventional manual method. We performed five ex vivo simulations of neonatal DVET using donor blood in standard blood bank bags and our automated device. Samples were obtained from the blood bag at baseline and from the distal end of the circuit after completion of 50% and 100% of the simulated DVET. These were analyzed for hematological, biochemical, and blood gas parameters, osmolality, and culture. For comparison, four manual DVETs were similarly performed, with corresponding sample collection and analyses. Deviations of laboratory parameters at the 50% and 100% time points that were > ± 25% from baseline were classified as major. The proportion of major deviations was compared between automated and manual DVETs. Automated DVETs demonstrated significantly fewer major deviations than manual DVETs in hematological parameters [15/156 (9.61%) vs. 28/124 (22.58%), p = 0.0048], biochemical parameters [0/120 (0%) vs. 32/88 (36.36%), p < 0.0001], and blood gas values [11/50 (22.0%) vs. 20/40 (50.0%), p = 0.011]. Notably, the blood used in automated DVETs was significantly older than that used in the manual group.
conclusionAutomated DVET using our novel device results in fewer compositional deviations from baseline compared to conventional manual DVET, supporting its potential clinical utility. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Our research group previously developed and published a novel electromechanical device to perform double volume exchange transfusions (DVET) in neonates through the umbilical venous route. • Previous authors who had made automated devices did not analyze the composition of the blood exiting the device circuit ("post-circuit" composition), nor compared this to the conventional manual method of exchange transfusions. WHAT IS NEW: • In simulated DVETs performed with our device, there were significantly fewer changes in the post-circuit composition of the blood from baseline (hematological, biochemical, blood gas and osmolality values) compared to manual DVETs. • Among DVETs performed manually, 7 ml aliquots per cycle were associated with greater changes in the post-circuit composition of the blood compared to 10 ml aliquots per cycle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41428230What 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.