Randomized pilot study to compare metal needles versus plastic cannulae in the development of complications in hemodialysis access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis requires needle insertions every treatment. Needle injury (mechanical or hemodynamic) may cause complications (aneurysms/stenosis) that compromise dialysis delivery requiring interventions. Metal needles have a sharp slanted "V"-shaped cutting tip; plastic cannulae have a dull round tip and four side holes. Preliminary observations demonstrated a difference in intradialytic blood flow images and mean Doppler velocities at cannulation sites between the two devices. Complications from mechanical and hemodynamic trauma requiring interventions were compared in each group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 33 patients (13 females and 17 new accesses) were randomized to metal group (n = 17) and plastic group (n = 16). Mechanical trauma was minimized by having five nurses performing ultrasound-guided cannulations. Complications were identified by the clinician and addressed by the interventionalists, both blinded to study participation. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were not significant. Procedures to treat complications along cannulation segments increased from 0.41 to 1.29 per patient (metal group) and decreased from 1.25 to 0.69 per patient (plastic group; p = 0.004). The relative risks of having an intervention (relative risk = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 0.88-2.67) and having an infiltration during hemodialysis (relative risk = 2.26, 95% confidence interval = 1.03-4.97) were higher for metal needles. Time to first intervention trended in favor of plastic cannula (p = 0.069). Cost of supplies for these interventions was approximately CAD$20,000 lower for the plastic group. CONCLUSION: Decreased burden of illness related to cannulation (less infiltrations during hemodialysis) and Qb were associated with plastic cannulae. Decreased procedure costs were suggested during the study period in the plastic group.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".