Central Venous Catheter Access in Children on HD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central venous catheters (CVC) remain a frequently used form of vascular access in children receiving chronic hemodialysis (HD). Whereas standard dual‐lumen catheters (DL) are used in many centers, the Tesio catheter has proven to be superior to the DL catheter in terms of catheter survival and infection rates in at least one pediatric study (Sheth RD et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001). Recently, the Ash Split catheter became available which, while similar to the Tesio internally, being comprised of 2 separate catheters, may be preferable because of the requirement for only one skin puncture for placement vs. two for the Tesio. However, no pediatric data pertaining to the Ash Split catheter have been published to date. Therefore, we reviewed and compared our experience with a small number of Ash Split (# 16) and Tesio (# 8) catheters used for semipermanent vascular access in our chronic HD population with reference to survival, infectious complications, patency, and dialysis adequacy. The results of this experience are as follows: Tesio Ash Split Survival >3 months 6/8 12/15 Sepsis (epi/catheter mo) 1/30 1/25 Exit‐site infection (epi/catheter mo) 1/8.6 1/19 sp Kt/V urea 1.67 1.88 % sp Kt/V urea >1.2 100 90 Reasons for the removal of Tesio catheters were transplant (4), sepsis (1), deterioration of tubing (1), and accidental (1). Ash Split catheter removal resulted from sepsis (2), fistula placement (4), thrombosis (1), and accidental (2). This preliminary experience reveals similar outcome data for the Tesio and Ash Split catheters when used in pediatric HD patients. Definitive statements regarding the superiority of either catheter awaits additional data collection and analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".