Vascular Access Care and Treatment Practices Associated with Outcomes of Arteriovenous Fistula: International Comparisons from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vascular access (VA) guidelines recommend the native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) as VA of first choice for chronic hemodialysis patients. AVF management is important in hemodialysis patient care. AVF survival is associated with various physical factors, but the effects of dialysis treatment factors upon AVF survival are still not clear. METHODS: Study patients were treated at 498 dialysis facilities participating in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) 2 or 3 (2002-2007). Analyses included 1,183 incident hemodialysis patients (on dialysis ≤7 days and using an AVF at study entry) and 949 prevalent patients (on dialysis >7 days at DOPPS entry and using a new AVF created during study observation). AVF survival was modeled from the study entry date for incident patients and date of first AVF use for prevalent patients. Predictors of primary and final AVF survival were compared across Japan, North America and Europe/Australia/New Zealand (EUR/ANZ) with adjustments for patient characteristics. RESULTS: No meaningful relationship was seen between AVF survival and various physician and staff practices. However, patients with prior catheter use displayed higher rates of primary and final AVF failure. Final AVF failure rates were higher in facilities with higher median blood flow rates (BFR). They were also greater in North America and EUR/ANZ than in Japan, but this difference was substantially attenuated after accounting for regional differences in facility median BFR. CONCLUSION: AVF longevity differed according to the DOPPS region, and was related to prior patient catheter use and facility BFR practice. Further longitudinal studies may help demonstrate meaningful associations between VA-handling skill and patency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".