Observational studyBMC nephrology2026
Rheopheresis in hemodialysis patients with limb ulcers or amputation: safety and outcomes from a multicenter cohort.
Observational study 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimb ulcers are common in hemodialysis (HD) and often have a poor prognosis despite standard care. Rheopheresis is a plasmapheresis technique that reduces blood viscosity and erythrocyte aggregation and has been proposed as an adjunctive therapy, but no study has yet compared it to standard care alone.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective multicenter study comparing 61 hemodialysis (HD) patients treated with rheopheresis for limb ulcer or amputation in five French dialysis centers with 119 HD patients receiving standard care matched on age, lesion type, and lesion site. Outcomes were analyzed using propensity score-matched cohorts. The primary outcome was 1-year amputation-free survival (AFS).
resultsOne-year AFS reached 58.9% (95% CI: 45.1; 70.4) in the rheopheresis cohort and 28.8% (95% CI: 20.9; 37.2) in the standard care cohort. This difference did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for immortal-time bias (HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.72-2.25). Secondary outcomes followed similar trends, slightly in favor of rheopheresis without reaching significance. Major adverse events occurred in only 2.4% of rheopheresis sessions, and no treatment-related deaths were reported.
conclusionsRheopheresis was well tolerated and demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Clinical outcomes were numerically better with rheopheresis compared to standard care, although differences did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest a potential benefit, warranting larger prospective studies.
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.