Central venous line–related thrombosis in children: association with central venous line location and insertion technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) in children are associated with central venous lines (CVLs). The study objective was to assess whether CVL location and insertion technique are associated with the incidence of VTE in children. We hypothesized that VTE would be more frequent with (1). CVL location on the left body side, (2). CVL location in the subclavian vein rather than the jugular vein, and (3). CVL insertion by percutaneous technique rather than venous cut-down. This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who had a CVL placed in the upper venous system during induction chemotherapy. Characteristics of CVL were documented prospectively. All children had outcome assessment for VTE by objective radiographic tests, including bilateral venography, ultrasound, echocardiography, and cranial magnetic resonance imaging. Among 85 children, 29 (34%) had VTE; 28 VTEs appeared in the upper venous system, and 1 was sinovenous thrombosis. Left-sided CVL (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-6.4; P =.048), subclavian CVL (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.2-8.5; P =.025), and percutaneous CVL insertion (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.3-9.2; P =.011) were associated with an increased incidence of VTE. Interaction occurred between CVL vein location and insertion technique. Subclavian vein CVL inserted percutaneously had an increased incidence (54%) of VTE compared with any other combination (P =.07). For CVL in the upper venous system, CVL placement on the right side and in the jugular vein may reduce the risk for CVL-related VTE. If subclavian vein placement is necessary, CVL insertion by venous cut-down appears preferable over percutaneous insertion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".