Cannulation and vascular access‐related complications in hemodialysis: Factors determining successful cannulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about cannulation of the vascular access (VA), such as the number of successful cannulation procedures, frequency of complications caused by cannulation, and VA failure. Incident patients were followed for 6 months, from the first successful cannulation with 2 needles--both used for the hemodialysis treatment. Data included patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication. Vascular access characteristics included: type of VA and location, vein diameter assessed by Duplex ultrasound, length of the cannulation route, and maturation period. Longitudinal data were collected by dialysis nurses, using identical questionnaires, and a standardized method to register data from each dialysis session. Among 10 Dutch dialysis facilities, clinical data from 120 patients were collected from June 2005 to March 2007. The use of autogenous arteriovenous fistulae (P<0.001) and limited length of the cannulation route (P<0.003) negatively affect the outcome of cannulation and complications such as use of single-needle (SN) dialysis and central vein catheters (CVC). Previous use of CVC and SN hemodialysis were significant predictors for VA failure (P<0.0001). The present study demonstrated that during the first 6 months of a newly placed VA, a huge number of cannulation-related complications such as miscannulation, use of CVC, and SN dialysis are encountered. Despite the fact that guidelines recommended the arteriovenous fistulae as the preferred VA, cannulation-related complications can lead to increased morbidity. The length of the cannulation route positively correlates with successful cannulation. Therefore, adjusted cannulation techniques might be indicated to improve VA outcome.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".