An Ethanol/Sodium Citrate Locking Solution Compared to Heparin to Prevent Hemodialysis Catheter-Related Infections: a Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the initial safety and efficacy of a novel 30% ethanol/4% sodium citrate catheter-locking solution to heparin in a hemodialysis population. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, pilot study of 40 hemodialysis patients randomized to a 30% ethanol/4% sodium citrate or heparin 1000 units/mL locking solution. The primary outcome was identification of any serious adverse events over the study duration. Secondary outcomes included the rate per 1000 catheter days for catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), alteplase use, catheter dysfunction, and catheter removal. RESULTS: Three serious adverse events were reported as possibly related to the catheter solutions. Only one CRBSI was observed during the study in the heparin arm. The rate of alteplase use was 1.5/1000 catheter days in the heparin arm compared to 2.8/1000 catheter days in the ethanol/citrate arm (rate ratio = 1.85, 90% CI 0.48, 7.07, p value = 0.45), while the rate of catheter dysfunction was 6.8/1000 catheter days in the heparin arm compared to 1.9/1000 catheter days in the ethanol citrate arm (rate ratio = 0.27, 90% CI 0.10, 0.74, p value = 0.04). Catheter survival to first catheter outcome was longer in the ethanol/citrate group compared to heparin and there were no catheter removals due to bacteremia or thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: The ethanol/sodium citrate locking solution was safely used in this study. It appears to prevent CRBSI and may improve catheter survival compared to heparin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01394458.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".