Concentration of Heparin-Locking Solution and Risk of Central Venous Hemodialysis Catheter Malfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heparin is used as an interdialytic locking solution for hemodialysis (HD) central venous catheters (CVCs). The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of two heparin concentrations (10,000 and 1,000 U/mL) in preventing catheter malfunction. We compared two time periods: a 6-month period with heparin 10,000 U/mL and a 3-month period with heparin 1,000 U/mL. Adults on HD using a CVC (tunneled or untunneled) in Calgary, Alberta, were included. The primary outcome was catheter malfunction. A total of 139 and 134 patients in the heparin 10,000 and 1,000 U/mL periods, respectively, were included. The crude rate of catheter malfunction, per 1,000 HD sessions, was similar for heparin 10,000 (7.6; 95% CI, 5.3 to 10.8) and 1,000 (6.7; 95% CI, 4.3 to 10.3) U/mL periods, respectively (p = 0.76). After adjusting for CVC characteristics and use of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA), there was no association between heparin concentration and CVC malfunction (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.61). In conclusion, the use of a lower concentration of heparin was not associated with an increased risk of catheter malfunction but may be associated with greater rt-PA use. The association between heparin concentration and rt-PA use requires further study.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".