Regular Monitoring of Access Flow Compared with Monitoring of Venous Pressure Fails to Improve Graft Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular vascular access blood flow (Qa) surveillance is recommended to detect graft stenosis; however, there is little evidence that monitoring and correcting with angioplasty improves graft survival. This blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 112 patients studied time to graft thrombosis and graft loss, comparing monthly Qa plus standard surveillance (dynamic venous pressure and physical examination) (treatment group) to standard surveillance alone (control group). Only the treatment group was referred for angiogram if Qa <650 ml/min or a 20% decrease in Qa from baseline. Percutaneous angioplasty was performed for stenosis >50%. The rate of graft thrombosis per patient-year at risk was 0.41 and 0.51 in the control and treatment groups, respectively. Fifty-one interventions (0.93/patient-years at risk) were performed in the treatment group versus 31 interventions (0.61/patient-years at risk) in the control group. There was no difference in time to graft loss (P = 0.890). In a multivariate analysis, aspirin (ASA) therapy at baseline was associated with an 84% reduction in risk of graft thrombosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; P = 0.002). Higher baseline Qa (OR, 0.84; P = 0.05) and longer interval since graft insertion (OR, 0.97; P = 0.07) were associated with a decrease in graft thrombosis. Results reveal that graft surveillance that uses Qa increases the detection of stenosis, compared with standard surveillance; however, intervention with angioplasty does not improve the time to graft thrombosis or time to graft loss.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".