Comparison of side hole versus non side hole high flow hemodialysis catheters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current literature suggests that side holes may be detrimental to dialysis catheter performance. Today, these catheters are primarily available with side holes. The purpose of this study was to compare flow rates, infection rate, and survival of side hole vs. non side hole hemodialysis catheters. Over a 16-month period patients were arbitrarily assigned to either a 14.5 F MAHURKAR MAXID cuffed dual lumen tunneled catheter with side holes or a 14.5 F MAHURKAR MAXID cuffed dual lumen tunneled catheter without side holes ("non side hole catheters"). We performed a retrospective analysis of catheter flow rates, patency, catheter survival, and catheter-related infections. Information was gathered for the life of the catheter or up to 28 weeks. A total of 54 patients were enrolled in the study. Thirty-seven of 54 (68%) patients received a catheter with side holes for a total of 3,930 catheter days and 17/54 (32%) received a similar catheter without side holes for a total of 2,188 catheter days. Catheter infection necessitating removal of the catheter occurred in 10/37 catheters with side holes and 1/17 without side holes. Infection rates per 1,000 catheter days were 2.545 with side holes and 0.254 without side holes (p<0.001). Slightly improved catheter survival (p<0.05) was recorded with the non side hole catheters. No insertion complication (e.g., air embolization, bleeding, or kinking) occurred with either catheter. One catheter without side holes had to be repositioned 5 days after insertion because of poor flows. No significant difference was recorded in mean blood flow rates between the catheters. Results indicate reduced catheter infection rate in hemodialysis patients with the use of non side hole dual lumen tunneled cuffed catheters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".