ArticleEJHaem2026
Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Venous Catheter for Automated Erythrocytapheresis in a Paediatric Population Affected by Sickle Cell Disease.
Article in EJHaem, 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
Introduction: Automated erythrocytapheresis (aEEX) is an effective therapy for severe sickle cell disease (SCD). Its use in paediatrics can be limited by challenges in obtaining reliable venous access. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-centre study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral venous catheter (PVC) placement for aEEX compared with central venous catheter (CVC) use in children and adolescents with SCD. Results: Between May 2018 and July 2025, 99 aEEX procedures using PVC were compared with 44 using CVC in 23 patients (median age: 16.4 years). The most frequent indication was severe disease phenotype (62.9%), defined as recurrent vaso-occlusive crises and/or splenic sequestration and/or acute chest syndrome despite optimal hydroxyurea therapy. The procedure success rate was 99.0% for PVC and 97.7% for CVC, with median post-apheresis HbS of 26.5% and 24.0%, respectively. Complications, mostly transient and without clinical impact, occurred in 9.1% of PVC procedures and 6.8% of CVC procedures. No infectious or and thrombotic events were reported. Conclusions: These findings indicate that aEEX under light sedation with US-guided PVC placement is a safe, well-tolerated and effective alternative to CVC in selected paediatric patients with SCD. This approach may expand access to aEEX reducing reliance on CVC and manual exchange procedures. Trial Registration: The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.
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.