Risk of Infection Using Peripherally Inserted Central and Umbilical Catheters in Preterm Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of catheter-associated bloodstream infection (CABSI) in preterm infants born at <30 weeks' gestation who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) versus an umbilical venous catheter (UVC) immediately after birth as their primary venous access. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study examined data from infants born at <30 weeks' gestation and admitted between January 2010 and December 2013 to neonatal units in the Canadian Neonatal Network. Eligible infants who received a PICC on the first day after birth (day 1) were matched with 2 additional groups of infants, those who received a UVC on day 1 and those who received a UVC on day 1 that was then changed for a PICC after 4 days or more. The primary outcome was number of infants with CABSI per 1000 catheter days, which was compared between the 3 groups using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Data from 540 eligible infants were reviewed (180 per group). There was no significant difference in infants with CABSI/1000 catheter days between the 3 groups (9.3 vs 7.8 vs 8.2/1000 catheter days, respectively; P > .05) despite lower rates of late onset sepsis in the group of infants who received only a UVC. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of CABSI between very preterm neonates who received a PICC, UVC, or UVC followed by PICC as the primary mode of venous access after birth. A prospective randomized controlled trial is justified to further guide practice regarding primary venous access and reduction of infection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".