Central venous stenosis in chronic hemodialysis patients: The effect of percutaneous angioplasty and stenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Central venous stenosis in chronic hemodialysis patients occurs in about 17% of all venous stenosis and it is associated with central vein catheterization. We evaluated the effect of percutaneous angioplasty and stenting in the treatment of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the medical records of a total of 31 dialysis patients who had central venous stenosis. We reviewed the causes of central venous stenosis, clinical manifestations, venographic findings, and patency rate of radiological intervention. Results: Of the total 31 patients, 28 patients had past history of central vein catheterization ipsilateral to vascular access. Mean duration of the catheterization was 32 ± 14 days. Venography showed complete obstruction of central vein (n = 14) and stenosis (n = 17). The site of venous lesion was right subclavian vein (n = 11), innominate vein (n = 9), left subclavian vein (n = 7), and superior vena cava (n = 14). A total of 30 procedures of angioplasty with or without stenting were performed in 26 of 31 patients. Initial success rate was 96.1% and there was no severe complication such as rupture or bleeding. The primary patency rate at 6, 12, 24, and 48 months after the procedure was 87.3%, 75.6%, 67.9%, and 65.4%, respectively. The cumulative patency rate at the same time point was 96.0%, 90.6%, 74.0%, and 72.8%, respectively. Conclusion: Our data suggest that angioplasty with or without stenting is safe and effective in the treatment of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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".