Split catheters in children on chronic hemodialysis: A single‐center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) play an increasing role as vascular access for chronic hemodialysis (HD) in children, but limited data exist about the optimal CVC choice. We analyzed the outcome, efficacy, and complications of tunneled CVCs, placed in our unit in the last 3 years. Nineteen 10 F Split-Cath CVCs (two separate catheters fused along their length) were placed in 10 children, median age 9.19 years (range 2.15-13.31) and body weight (BW) between 10 and 40 kg. CVCs survival at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 94%, 77%, 51%, and 34%, respectively. Catheter survival was higher in children with BW > 20 kg than in smaller patients. Median survival was higher than that of 11 Quinton Permcath CVCs, placed in five children in the preceding 2 years (280 vs. 45 days, P < 0.05). Median blood flow rate and indices of HD adequacy were higher in children with lower BW (<20 kg vs. 20-30 kg vs. >30 kg) than in those with higher BW. Incidence of exit site and bloodstream infections was 2.32 and 0.66/1000 CVC days, respectively. One case of hemothorax due to subclavian artery puncture occurred during CVC placement. In conclusion, Split-Cath 10 F CVC allows for effective dialysis in children undergoing HD, particularly those between 10 and 30 kg BW. Catheter survival is acceptable, but could be improved in small children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".