Experience with central venous access devices (<scp>CVAD</scp>s) in the Canadian hemophilia primary prophylaxis study (<scp>CHPS</scp>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia A treatment with factor VIII concentrates requires frequent venipunctures; a central venous access device (CVAD) may be required to facilitate reliable venous access, especially in young children. While CVADs provide reliable venous access, complications such as infection and thrombosis may occur. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess CVAD use in the Canadian Hemophilia Primary Prophylaxis Study (CHPS), a single-arm, multi-centre prospective study whereby factor use is tailored to individual prophylactic need. METHODS: Participants received a tailored, escalating dose, prophylaxis regimen of increasing frequency of FVIII infusions: step-1: 50 IU kg(-1) once weekly; step-2: 30 IU kg(-1) twice weekly; and step-3: 25 IU kg(-1) on alternate days, according to their level of bleeding. CVAD insertion was at the discretion of the local health care team. Details regarding CVAD use during this protocol were analysed. RESULTS: Fifty six boys were enrolled, 21 required 25 CVADs due to difficult venous access. CVADs were inserted at a median age of 1.3 years (range: 0.6-2.1) and were removed at a median age of 8.7 years (range 6.3-11.8). Six participants experienced non-life threatening CVAD-complications, the most frequent being device malfunction requiring CVAD replacement (n = 4). Two boys were shown to have CVAD-associated thrombosis detected on routine imaging; one required removal due to infusion difficulties and the other was asymptomatic and did not require device removal. No CVAD-related infections were documented. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the CHPS tailored prophylaxis regimen is associated with a decreased requirement for CVADs and with few device-related complications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".