Effects of citrate‐enriched bicarbonate based dialysate on anticoagulation and dialyzer reuse in maintenance hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin is commonly used in maintenance hemodialysis (HD), but it increases the risk of bleeding complications. We investigated whether the use of citrate-enriched bicarbonate based dialysate (CD) would reduce systemic anticoagulation without compromising the efficacy of reprocessed dialyzers. This is a crossover study in which half of a total of 30 patients initially underwent HD with acetate-enriched bicarbonate based dialysate and a standard heparin dose of ∼ 100 IU/kg (Treatment A), whereas the remaining patients were treated with CD and a 30% reduced heparin dose (Treatment B). After 12 consecutive HD sessions in each treatment, the dialysate and heparin doses were reversed, then followed for another period of 12 HD sessions. The two treatment phases were split by a washout period of six HD sessions using acetate-enriched bicarbonate based dialysate and standard heparin dose. Systemic anticoagulation was higher in Treatment A. The activated partial thromboplastin time at the end of HD session was 68 ± 36 seconds in Treatment A and 47 ± 16 seconds in Treatment B (P = 0.005). Sixty-eight percent of the dialyzers remained adequate until the 12th use in Treatment A and 61% did so in Treatment B (P = 0.63). Patients had three and 24 cramps episodes during Treatment A and B, respectively (P < 0.001). Nine and 26 symptomatic intradialytic hypotension episodes were seen in Treatment A and B, respectively, (P = 0.003). In conclusion, the use of CD had a favorable effect on anticoagulation in the extracorporeal circuit in patients on maintenance HD, but it was also associated with more hypotension and cramps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".