Antibiotic lock: In vitro stability of gentamicin and sodium citrate stored in dialysis catheters at 37 °C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catheter-related bacteremia (CRB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality especially among patients receiving hemodialysis. Antibiotic lock therapy represents a promising technique in the treatment of CRB. Several studies have evaluated antibiotics in combination with heparin as an interdialytic locking solution for prophylaxis of CRB. The objective of this study was to evaluate the stability of gentamicin and sodium citrate in hemodialysis catheters as an interdialytic lock. Solutions containing gentamicin 2.5 mg/mL and sodium citrate 40 mg/mL (4%) were prepared individually and in combination. The solutions were instilled into dialysis catheters and stored at 37 degrees C for 96 h. Samples were withdrawn randomly from catheter lumens at 24-hour intervals for 4 days and stored at -20 degrees C until analysis. The samples were analyzed with validated, stability-indicating HPLC assays. The luminal concentration of gentamicin 2.5 mg/mL, sodium citrate 40 mg/mL (4%), and the combination was determined on study days 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. When gentamicin was combined with sodium citrate and stored at 37 degrees C in dialysis catheters, the solution showed no decrease in either the gentamicin or the sodium citrate concentrations over the 96-hour study period. The percent of the original concentration at 96 h was 102.4+/-1.03 for gentamicin and 102.9+/-1.25 for citrate (P=0.5556). The combination of gentamicin 2.5 mg/mL and sodium citrate 40 mg/mL (4%) can be retained in hemodialysis catheters for at least 96 h at 37 degrees C with no evidence of degradation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".