Evaluating safety of tunneled small bore central venous catheters in chronic kidney disease population: A quality improvement initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) may adversely impact future successful arteriovenous fistulae (AVF). As part of a quality improvement project, the performance of tunneled small bore tunneled central venous catheters (TSB-CVCs), as alternatives to PICCs, was evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective observational study, involving individuals ≥18 years of age who underwent TSB-CVC placement by Interventional Radiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between 1/1/2010 and 8/30/2013. FINDINGS: The study cohort included 92 patients with a median age of 55 (46-67) years, who underwent 108 TSB-CVC placements. Baseline renal disease was present in 71% (77/108). Most TSB-CVCs were placed in hospitalized patients (94%; 102/108); five French in diameter (61%; 66/108) and located in an internal jugular vein (84%; 91/108). Median catheter indwelling time was 20 (11-43) days (n = 84). TSB-CVC-related bloodstream infection, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and superficial venous thrombosis (SpVT) rates per line were 0.009 (1/108), 0.018 (2/108), and 0.009 (1/108), respectively. Venous outcomes in a subgroup of 54 patients, who had documented PICC placements (n = 161) in addition to TSB-CVC (n = 58) were compared. TSB-CVC-DVT rate was lower than the PICC-DVT rate (0.017 [1/58] vs. 0.106 per line [17/161]; P = 0.04). The TSB-CVC-SpVT rate was not different from the PICC-SpVT rate (0 [0/58] vs. 0.037 [6/161] per line; P = 0.14). DISCUSSION: TSB-CVCs demonstrated an excellent safety profile in our study. These catheters should be preferentially utilized for arm vein preservation in advanced kidney disease. Their impact on future AVF success needs further evaluation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".