MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Air‐Bubble Method of Locking Central‐Vein Catheters for Prevention of Hub Colonization: A Pilot Study

2003· article· en· W2085280092 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zbylut J. Twardowski, Garry P. Reams, Barbara F. Prowant, Harold L. Moore, John C. Van Stone

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatheterMedicineSalineHeparinAir bubbleAir embolismSurgeryBacteremiaAnesthesiaBubbleAnticoagulantLock (firearm)ComplicationChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The major source of catheter-associated bacteremia is contamination of the catheter hub during connection-disconnection procedures. A new method of catheter locking has been developed wherein anticoagulant is injected first, followed by a 0.1-mL air bubble and 0.9 mL of bactericidal solution. The anticoagulant is then located at the catheter tip and the bactericidal solution is located at the catheter hub. The air bubble prevents mixing of the two solutions. The bactericidal solution was acidified concentrated saline (ACS). The 27% saline solution has a pH of 2.0. ACS was chosen because it is theoretically harmless if injected in the amount used to lock the catheter lumens. The goals of this pilot study were to determine whether the new method of catheter locking is easy to perform with available syringes and whether eventual injection of the experimental solution is well tolerated. METHODS: Ten patients were randomly assigned, either to heparin lock (5 patients, 62 treatments) or air-bubble method (5 patients, 56 treatments). In the control group, the catheters were locked with heparin, 5000 U/mL. In the experimental group, the catheters were locked with heparin, air bubble, and ACS. Altogether, the lumens were overfilled by 0.2 mL. RESULTS: Compared to the routine method, the experimental method required a 1- to 2-min-longer procedure time. There were no errors in proper sequence of injections into the lumina. There were no episodes of bacteremia related to hub contamination in either group. In the air-bubble group, there was one case of bacteremia associated with purulent drainage from the exit and the same organism in both cultures. In three instances in each group, the locking solution could not be aspirated and was injected without any subjective symptoms or objective signs. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the air-bubble method of locking central-vein catheters is easy to perform. In three instances of air-bubble and ACS injection, there were no adverse effects. A full-scale prospective randomized study is feasible and warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→