Risk and complications of venous thromboembolism in dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Contemporary data on venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in dialysis patients are limited. Our objective was to determine the risk and complications of VTE among incident maintenance dialysis patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using administrative databases. We included adult incident dialysis patients from 2004 to 2010 (n = 13 315). Dialysis patients were age- and sex-matched to individuals of the general population using a 1:4 ratio (n = 53 260). We determined the 3-year cumulative incidence and incidence rate (IR) of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT). We examined outcomes of bleeding and all-cause mortality following a VTE event among matched dialysis patients who did and did not experience a VTE. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models, stratified on matched sets, to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) for all outcomes of interest. Results: VTE occurred in 1114 (8.4%) dialysis patients compared with 1233 (2.3%) individuals in the general population {IR 37.1 versus 8.1 per 1000 person-years; HR 4.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1-4.9]; adjusted HR 2.9 (95% CI 2.6-3.4)}. Both components of VTE [PE and DVT; adjusted HR 4.0 (95% CI 2.9-5.6) and HR 2.8 (95% CI 2.4-3.2), respectively] occurred more frequently in dialysis patients. Compared with dialysis patients without a VTE, those with a VTE had a higher risk of bleeding [adjusted HR 2.0 (95% CI 1.3-2.9)] and all-cause mortality [adjusted HR 2.4 (95% CI 2.0-2.8)]. Conclusions: VTE is common in dialysis patients and confers a high risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Thromboprophylaxis and VTE treatment studies in dialysis patients are needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".