Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Long‐term Parenteral Nutrition in Infants With Intestinal Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Infants with intestinal failure often require long-term central access for delivery of parenteral nutrition (PN). Traditionally, surgically placed central venous catheters (CVCs) have been used; however, the complications associated with these catheters can lead to significant morbidity. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are potentially superior to CVCs because they tend to be smaller, and can be placed without general anesthesia. The purpose of the study is to report the use of PICCs for long-term administration of PN in infants with intestinal failure and compare with previously published catheter infection and venous thrombosis rates. METHODS: A 4-year review of infants younger than 12 months with intestinal failure and a PICC for PN delivery was performed to determine the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) and PICC-associated venous thrombosis. The complication rates were compared with those reported for CVCs and PICCs in the pediatric literature. RESULTS: A total of 45 infants with intestinal failure, receiving PN through a PICC were included in the study. Data from 95 PICCs accounting for 10,189 catheter days were collected. The overall incidence of CRBSI was 5.3/1000 catheter days and the incidence of venous thrombosis was 2.0/1000 catheter days. CONCLUSIONS: PICCs offer an advantage over CVCs in that they can often be inserted without a general anesthesia and do not require manipulation of the vein. Given the low rate of CRBSI and venous thrombosis, we recommend PICCs for infants with intestinal failure requiring PN.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".