Alteplase for blood flow restoration in hemodialysis catheters: a multicenter, randomized, prospective study comparing dwell versus push administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Catheter-related thrombosis is a frequent complication of providing hemodialysis via central venous catheters. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of an alteplase "dwell" protocol over 30 minutes (with an additional 90 minutes where necessary) to a new 30 minute "push" protocol in restoring function to occluded hemodialysis catheters. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, parallel arm, multicenter study. Participants included hemodialysis patients using central venous catheters for vascular access. A new alteplase push protocol was the intervention and was compared to an alteplase dwell protocol. The primary outcome of this study was the proportion of patients with pre-thrombolytic blood flows less than 200 ml/min achieving a post thrombolytic blood flow ≥ 300 ml/ min. Secondary outcomes included recovery of Kt/V and liters processed per hour at the hemodialysis session following the intervention, time from thrombolytic to future catheter interventions, and the presence of serious adverse events. RESULTS: 82 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 65% (28/43) of catheters receiving the dwell protocol achieved blood flow ≥ 300 ml/min compared to 82% (32/39) in the push protocol. The difference was not statistically significant despite a 17% separation in the point estimates, p = 0.84. A non-significant result may have been associated with an inability to enrol the required a priori sample size. Kt/V, liters processed per hour and time to next catheter event were not significantly different. There were no serious adverse events attributed to the study medication. CONCLUSIONS: The alteplase push protocol was effective and safe for managing dysfunctional hemodialysis catheters and was more practical than a 2 h dwell.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".