Estimation of heparin leak into the systemic circulation after central venous catheter heparin lock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most catheter problems in haemodialysis are related to infection or clotting, bleeding associated with the heparin lock is of clinical importance especially during peri-operative conditions. The objective of this in vitro study is to estimate the volume of heparin that may leak into the circulation immediately after performing a catheter lock. METHODS: Different volumes (ml) of a dextrose solution were used to perform a catheter lock on haemodialysis catheters. The tip of the catheter was placed in a test tube containing water for a pre-specified period. The final concentrations of dextrose in the test tube were used to determine the volume of solution that leaked from the catheter. RESULTS: When the total lumen volume was filled, the catheter leak was estimated to be 0.59+/-0.03 and 0.71+/-0.04 ml after 15 and 25 s, respectively. There was a continuous leak of 1.23+/-0.41, 2.20+/-0.34 and 3.38+/-0.23 ml at 5, 15 and 30 min, respectively, after performing a catheter lock on a catheter with a total lumen volume of 4.5 ml. The catheter leak was significantly reduced when only 3.7 ml of solution was used to fill the total lumen volume of 4.5 ml. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates a significant early and late leakage from the catheter that occurs after performing a catheter lock. When applied to heparin, the volume of the unwanted catheter leak may result in adverse clinical events, especially following haemodialysis sessions and during peri-operative periods. However, these results are hypothesis-generating, and clinical studies are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of underfilling.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".