Treatment and Prophylaxis of Catheter-Related Thromboembolic Events in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The therapeutic management of catheter-related thromboembolic events in children is still a challenge due to the large number of potentially effective pharmacological alternatives and the insufficient scientific evidence available. A bibliographic review was performed in order to identify the available pharmacological alternatives for the prophylaxis and therapeutic management of catheter-related thrombosis in children. METHODS: A literature search was carried out on MEDLINE using the medical subject heading (MeSH) central venous catheter thrombosis and on Google Scholar. The search was limited to review papers, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and randomized controlled trials performed on pediatric populations until November 2011. RESULTS: The different options for anticoagulation include unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists. Thrombus resolution is stimulated more rapidly with thrombolytic agents than with anticoagulants, but the risk-benefit ratio must be considered. Streptokinase is not considered an optimal alternative due to the risk of anaphylactic reactions and has been replaced by urokinase, alteplase or the newer reteplase. Preventive strategies have been considered and most centers have protocols for routine flushing of the catheter with heparin or normal saline. Intraluminal application of urokinase and alteplase has also been studied. CONCLUSIONS: The wide range of options available for the pharmacotherapeutic management of catheter-related thromboembolism in children and the lack of strong evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of the different therapeutic options, make its positioning rather difficult. Randomized controlled trials and national plans should be set up urgently.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".