The impact of extended‐hours home hemodialysis and buttonhole cannulation technique on hospitalization rates for septic events related to dialysis access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies adequately document adverse events in patients receiving long, slow, and overnight hemodialysis (NHD). Concerns about high rates of dialysis access complications have been raised. This is an observational cohort study comparing hospital admission rates for vascular access complications between alternate nightly NHD (n=63) and conventional hemodialysis (n=172) patients established on chronic hemodialysis for at least 3 months. Overall, hospital admission rates and hospital admission rates for cardiac and all infective events are also reported. The NHD cohort was younger and less likely to be female, diabetic, or have ischemic heart disease than the conventional hemodialysis cohort. When NHD and buttonhole cannulation technique were used simultaneously, there was a demonstrated increased risk of septic dialysis access events: incidence rate ratio 3.0 (95% confidence interval 1.04-8.66) (P=0.04). The majority of blood culture isolates in NHD patients were gram-positive organisms, particularly Staphylococcus aureus. Alternate nightly NHD did not significantly change total hospital admissions or hospital admissions for indications other than dialysis access complications, compared with conventional hemodialysis. Our data suggest that buttonhole cannulation technique should be used with caution in patients performing extended-hours hemodialysis as this combination appears to increase the risk of septic access complications. Randomized-controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".