ArticlePediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2026
Comparison of Kirpa Kit™ manual hemodialysis device to standard continuous kidney replacement therapy in vitro.
Article in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccess to kidney replacement therapy remains limited in many low- and middle-income countries. The Kirpa Kit™ is a low-cost, electricity-free manual hemodialysis device designed for resource-limited settings. Although it has previously shown feasibility in vitro, in vivo, and in first-in-human use, it has never been directly compared with an automated extracorporeal dialysis platform under matched conditions.
methodsIn vitro experiments were performed in triplicate comparing the Kirpa Kit™ and the Prismaflex™. A 5-L bag of diluted packed red blood cells enriched with urea was used for each device across all runs. Each system was operated for 30 min per experiment at a blood flow rate of ~ 100 mL/min and a dialysis fluid flow rate of 4 L/h. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) was measured at baseline and every 10 min. UF target was 0 mL.
resultsMedian BUN reduction at 10, 20, and 30 min was 7.1%, 13.6%, and 18.0% for the Kirpa Kit™ and 8.2%, 16.4%, and 23.2% for the Prismaflex™, respectively. Final BUN reduction did not differ between devices (p = 0.38). Median achieved cumulative UF volume per experiment with a goal target of 0 mL was 16 mL (IQR 14-28) for the Kirpa Kit™ and 61 mL (IQR 54-62) for the Prismaflex™. Manual operation of the Kirpa Kit™ was feasible throughout the experiments, with only mild operator fatigue.
conclusionsUnder controlled experimental conditions, the Kirpa Kit™ achieved BUN reduction comparable to a standard automated CKRT platform, supporting its potential as a low-cost dialysis option for infants, children, adolescents, and adults in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42479148What 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.