Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41530746›Full record

ArticleBMC nephrology2026

Three decades of experience with therapeutic apheresis at a tertiary academic center: review of indications, clinical practice, special age groups and complications.

Alexander Jerman, Milena Andonova, Ana Župunski Čede, Denis Fornazarič, Jakob Gubenšek, Andreja Marn Pernat, Bojan Medved, Rafael Ponikvar, Karmen Romozi, Barbara Vajdič Trampuž and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Alexander JermanDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia. alexanderjerman@outlook.com.
Milena AndonovaDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Ana Župunski ČedeDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Denis FornazaričDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Jakob GubenšekDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Andreja Marn PernatDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Bojan MedvedDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Rafael PonikvarDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Karmen RomoziDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Barbara Vajdič TrampužDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Matej ZrimšekDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Vanja PeršičDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.

Funding

University Medical Center Ljubljana 20220095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe performed a comprehensive retrospective analysis of 30-year therapeutic apheresis (TA) activity and practices at one a national apheresis center in Slovenia to describe trends and main TA characteristics.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all TA procedures from 1986 to 2016 and extracted indications, vascular access, number of procedures and complications. We compared two time periods (1986–2000 vs. 2001–2016) and analyzed two age subgroups (children and elderly). For the most recent patient cohort (2010 to 2016) we retrieved additional parameters pertaining to each TA procedure.

resultsThe whole cohort included 1,132 patients who underwent a total of 14,082 apheresis procedures. Central venous catheters were predominantly used, with a trend toward greater use of arterio-venous fistulas in the later period. The number of procedures increased over time. The use of lipid apheresis was stable, and the use of immunoadsorption declined in recent years. The use of apheresis for some indications increased, whereas other indications remained stable over the years. The comparison of the two time periods revealed increased utilization of the TA, increasing patient age, and a shift in vascular access type. In pediatric and elderly patient populations, the indications differed substantially. Chronic apheresis was utilized in a distinct subset of patients. Our analysis confirmed that TA was generally safe and had a low incidence of complications. The most common adverse events were hypotension and mild allergic reactions. Only 0.6% of the procedures were stopped because of a complication.

conclusionOur study provides valuable insights into TA practices over three decades. This finding underscores the importance of vascular access in apheresis treatment and reaffirms the safety profile of TA across different age groups. Our center’s collaborative approach to providing TA under nephrologist supervision has proven effective in managing changes in the field of apheresis and ensuring patient safety.

Indexed as

Blood Component RemovalTertiary Care CentersAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSloveniaApheresisComplicationsIndicationsPlasmapheresisTherapeutic plasma exchange

Identifiers

PMID41530746
PMCPMC12888241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.