MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Incidence of Catheter-Related Venous Thromboembolism Events in Acute Leukemia patients; A Comparative, Retrospective Study of the Safety of Peripherally-Inserted Vs Centrally-Inserted Central Venous Catheters

2015· article· en· W2467879725 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohammad Refaei, Bruna Fernandes, Joseph Brandwein, M. Dawn Goodyear, Cynthia Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripherally inserted central catheterThrombosisIncidence (geometry)Venous thrombosisSurgeryConcomitantCatheterDeep veinCentral venous catheterCentral lineAcute leukemiaInternal medicineLeukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1. Background Central venous catheters (CVCs) are a leading cause of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE DVT). There is little data on patients with acute leukemia (AL). Long term CVCs are required for chemotherapy in AL. Concomitant severe thrombocytopenia makes anticoagulation for CVC related thrombosis a challenge. Incidence of UE DVT has been reported to be increased in those with peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC lines) vs those with centrally inserted lines. 2. Aims Our objective is to compare the incidence rate of VTE in leukemia inpatients with a PICC vs centrally-inserted CVC. 3. Methods We reviewed 420 charts for AL inpatients requiring a PICC line admitted to Hematology at the University of Alberta Hospital between 2003-2013. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded. All venous thromboembolic events were objectively confirmed on imaging studies. Incidence of catheter associated thrombosis was calculated. 4. Results 420 patients were identified. We present the preliminary results of the 337 patients that met our inclusion criteria, and received at least one PICC line insertion. 305 (90%) had AML, 144 (43%) were smokers, 126 (37.4%) had cardiovascular risk factor, and only 14 (4.2%) had previous VTE. Overall, there were 634 PICC line insertions, with the 5FR dual lumen being the most commonly used PICC line (80%). Out of the 634 insertions, there were 65 (10%) new ipsilateral upper extremity DVTs, 54 (83%) of which developed acutely (<1month), and 44 (68%) in thrombocytopenic patients (platelet<50). 7 (1.1%) and 15 (2.4%) patients developed recurrent and concurrent VTEs, respectively. There was an incidence of 1.85 DVT per 1000 catheter days. 5. Conclusions The incidence rate of DVT in our AL patients is higher than predicted for a general cancer patient population. This data will be compared to a similar cohort of AL inpatients presently being reviewed, who received a centrally-inserted CVC. Updated results will be included accordingly. Determining factors that are associated with a lower risk of DVT in this high bleeding risk population will be important to optimize patient care. Disclosures Wu: Leopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→