Optimizing Dialysis Delivery in Tunneled Dialysis Catheters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term dialysis is often delivered through tunneled central venous catheters (CVC) despite their associated morbidity and mortality rates. Because poor solute clearance might contribute to this risk, we examined the relation between blood pump speed (QB), access recirculation (AR), and dialysis delivery in patients with CVC. We conducted a prospective study on 102 patients receiving long-term hemodialysis with CVC. QB was systematically varied, and AR was measured by saline dilution with the blood supply lines in both the straight and the reversed positions during each of two dialysis sessions. During a third session, we measured ionic dialysance (EID) in patients with AR>0% and those in whom dialysis was usually delivered with catheters in the reversed position.Approximately one third (34.3%) of patients were usually run in the reversed position. Clinically significant AR (>10%) was infrequent (3%) in the straight position but common in the reversed position (86%). QB and EID were linearly correlated for both the straight and reversed positions. Approximately half (48.6%) of patients who were generally treated with their lines reversed were able to receive dialysis with the lines in the straight position within acceptable pressure limits when blood lines were switched part way through the run. In these patients, solute clearance was equivalent (EID straight 204 ml/min vs. reversed 196 ml/min, p=0.58) with lines in the straight configuration despite lower achieved QB (straight 354 ml/min vs. reversed 404 ml/min, p=0.04). Maximization of prescribed QB in CVC increased AR when blood line position was reversed but improved small solute clearance regardless of line position. This suggests that QB in CVC should be set as high as circuit pressure limits will allow, regardless of the potential for AR, and that reversal of line position confers no benefit with respect to solute clearance.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".