Relationship between double-cuff versus single-cuff peritoneal dialysis catheters and risk of peritonitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peritonitis among peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients remains an important complication. To date, no catheter type has consistently been shown to reduce peritonitis risk. It has been hypothesized that double-cuff catheters might be superior to single-cuff catheters in preventing peritonitis caused by periluminal entry of organisms. METHODS: Using data collected in the multicentre Canadian Baxter Peritonitis Organism Exit-Sites Tunnel Infections (POET) database between 1996 and 2005, the association between number of catheter cuffs and peritonitis was tested. Variables adjusted for in the negative binomial model included age, gender, race, diabetes, renal disease, transfer from haemodialysis, previous renal transplant, PD modality and swan neck versus straight catheter. RESULTS: Data were available for 4247 incident patients with a total of 2555 peritonitis episodes, corresponding to a peritonitis rate of 0.364 per dialysis year at risk. After adjustment for covariates, double-cuff catheter use was associated with a trend towards a lower peritonitis rate ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.01, P = 0.08]. This trend was largely due to a decreased Staphylococcus aureus peritonitis rate in those with a double-cuff catheter (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33-0.64, P < 0.001). When stratified by era of PD initiation, the benefit of double-cuff catheters was seen only among those initiating PD before 2001. CONCLUSION: Use of a double-cuff PD catheter is associated with a reduction in S. aureus peritonitis. Loss of the association between cuff number and peritonitis after the year 2000 may relate to changes in exit-site care that reduce the bacterial burden available for periluminal migration.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".