Decreased hemodialysis circuit pressures indicating postpump tubing kinks: A retrospective investigation of hemolysis in five patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The source of hemolysis during hemodialysis must be quickly identified to avoid life-threatening complications. At a single clinic, over a 10-day period in which 550 treatments were performed, 5 case-patients were retrospectively identified for experiencing acute hemolysis (4 deaths) from an unknown origin. The investigation focused on the postpump arterial tubing as the pressure was not monitored in this region, and the segment was shorter than required and could kink if overly stressed at bend points (i.e., tubing support clips, dialyzer inlet). To determine whether the circuit pressures indicated kinked tubing, a relative comparison between each case-patient's recorded arterial (prepump) and venous circuit pressures throughout their adverse event treatment and their immediately preceding treatment was conducted. Treatment pressure-time traces showed that sustained, significant decreases (>25 mmHg) in both of the circuit pressures occurred only on the hemolytic event dates. While direct observations of kinked tubing were not reported, the circuit pressure decreases could only be explained by severe postpump tube kinking causing a decrease in the blood flow rate. While postpump obstructions and hemolysis can occur without causing noticeable changes to the prepump arterial and venous blood line pressures (due to the highly occlusive setting of the roller blood pump), recognizing sudden and/or sustained decreases in the circuit pressures during treatment may help to prevent adverse patient events. This analysis reinforces the importance of regularly checking the blood tubing set for kinks and for monitoring the circuit pressures for atypical trends within and between treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".