Long-term results of thigh arteriovenous dialysis grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:: A proportion of hemodialysis patients exhaust all options for arteriovenous access in upper extremities. Arteriovenous thigh grafts are a potential vascular access option in such patients. METHODS:: We performed a retrospective study of all thigh arteriovenous access grafts placed between 1995 and 2015. The clinical, demographic patient information and patency of each thigh graft was determined from the time of surgical creation placement until abandonment, transfer to other modality, or center or end of study, and the reason for access failure documented. RESULTS:: In total, 44 patients received 49 thigh arteriovenous accesses. The average age was 60 years (13-79 years); Half (53%) of the patients (n = 24) were female and 61% of the patients (n = 30) of arteriovenous accesses were left-sided. The cumulative proportion surviving (primary patency rates) at 12, 24, and 28 months were 43% (standard error = 9%), 33% (standard error = 9%), and 13% (standard error = 9%), respectively. The cumulative proportion of surviving grafts at 12, 24, and 48 months were 61% (standard error = 8%), 58% (standard error = 9%), and 31% (standard error = 13%), respectively. In total, 37 revisions were performed in 22 patients to maintain patency or eradicate infection. Infection occurred in 20 patients (39%) of thigh grafts requiring 16 patients (80% of those affected) to be removed; 14 patients had grafts (33.3%) that served as the lone hemodialysis arteriovenous access during the patients' lifetime on dialysis. CONCLUSION:: Arteriovenous thigh graft access is used infrequently, but they have an acceptable patency. Some accesses require revisions and they have a high infection rate. Despite this, an acceptable proportion of leg grafts provide durable access for the dialysis lifetime of the patient.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".