Advanced age is not a barrier to creating a functional arteriovenous fistula: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are the recommended form of vascular access for hemodialysis. However, controversy exists regarding whether AVFs are suitable for elderly patients. METHODS: Single-center retrospective review to investigate the impact of age on AVF outcomes. Five hundred and twenty-five patients with AVF creation were stratified based on age <65, 65-75, and >75 years. AVF outcomes including primary failure, AVF patency (primary, secondary, and functional), and AVF complications were studied for 3 years following AVF creation. RESULTS: The cohort was 63% male, 44% Caucasian, and 55% had diabetes or cardiovascular disease. 39% were aged <65 years, 33% 65-75 years, and 28% were aged >75 years. No differences in rates of primary failure, loss of primary patency, complications, or need for intervention were observed between age groups. There was a significant association of age with secondary patency and functional patency, with age >75 being an independent risk factor for shortened lifespan of the fistula. For patients aged >75 years, secondary patency at 3 years was 64% compared to 75%-78% for younger patients. Functional patency at 2 years was 69% for those aged >75 years compared to 78%-81% for younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in AVF maturation, primary patency, complications, or interventions in those over the age of 75 compared to younger counterparts. While secondary and functional patency rates were significantly lower in those aged >75 years, the magnitude of difference is likely not clinically relevant. Therefore, we recommend that advanced age alone should not preclude patients from AVF creation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".