Immediate Versus Delayed Access of Implantable Venous Access Devices: Does the Timing of Access Make a Difference to the Frequency of Complications?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In many institutions protocols have not been developed as to when implantable venous access devices are accessed in children with cancer. The differences in complication rates (infection, hematoma, mechanical failure, and extravasation) between immediate versus delayed access remain unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study looks at the incidence of complications in two groups of pediatric patients who had an implantable venous access device inserted between 1998 and 2001 at McMaster Children's Hospital. Group 1 (immediate access group) had 23 patients and group 2 (delayed access) had 74 patients. RESULTS: The incidence of infection was 22% in group 1 and 14% in group 2. The difference between these infection rates was not statistically significant. All infections occurred in patients with a diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Of the patients in this study with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, 33% in group 1 and 36% in group 2 developed infections. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that implantable venous access devices can be accessed at the time of device insertion to decrease painful needle punctures in children with cancer and to provide secure immediate central venous access.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".