Factors influencing the prevalence of central venous catheter use in a Canadian haemodialysis centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The arteriovenous (AV) fistula is the optimal vascular access for chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS II) reported a high use of central venous (CV) catheters for HD in Canadian centres. We studied factors influencing the choice of access in a prevalent HD population at a Canadian centre. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of all HD patients at the Ottawa Hospital (Ottawa, Canada). Demographic information, the type of HD vascular access used and the factors influencing access choice were obtained from medical records. Nephrologists at the Ottawa Hospital were surveyed to identify attitudes that might influence the choice of HD access. RESULTS: In the survey of nephrologists (n = 17), there was 100% agreement that the AV fistula is the optimal HD access. In 599 prevalent chronic HD patients, AV fistulae were used in 58.0% (n = 347), CV catheters in 39.7% (n = 238) and only 2.3% had AV grafts (n = 14). By multivariate logistic regression, female gender, peripheral vascular disease and shorter duration of HD were independent predictors of CV catheter use. Of the patients with CV catheters, 68.9% had vascular factors or medical contraindications that precluded AV fistula creation. System/resource limitations influenced choice of access in only 19.3% of patients with CV catheters, although these factors were more important in patients within the first 6 months of HD initiation. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively high prevalence of CV catheter use at our HD centre is due mainly to patient-specific factors (e.g. unsuitable vessels or medical co-morbidities), rather than resource limitations or physician attitudes. Target setting for AV fistula use requires consideration of these factors as well as the effect of HD duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".