Outcomes of upper extremity versus lower extremity placed peripherally inserted central catheters in a medical-surgical neonatal intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) placed in the upper extremity (UE) versus the lower extremity (LE) in a quaternary medical-surgical neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 365 PICCs of which 250 (68%) were removed for end of therapy and 115 (32%) were removed due to complications. Patients who had UE insertions compared to LE insertions were of lower gestational age (median (IQR)), 30 (26, 35) vs. 32 (27, 37) weeks respectively (p = 0.014). UE PICCs were more likely to be removed due to complications compared to LE PICCs (39.9% vs. 26.4%, RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 -2.03, p = 0.007). UE PICCs were more likely than LE PICCs to be removed for the complications of malposition, dislodgement, and pleural or pericardial effusions; while LE PICCs were more likely to be removed for phlebitis. There were no differences in the rates of sepsis at 13.0% vs. 12.8% for UE vs. LE respectively, or causal organisms for sepsis. Survival analysis demonstrated that LE PICCs had a longer time to removal for a complication (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: LE compared with UE PICCs were not associated with worse outcomes in a medical-surgical neonatal population that included a significant proportion of full-term neonates, and provide a valuable alternate site for central venous access. Increased awareness of the types of complications for UE compared with LE PICCs may help focus preventive and surveillance efforts based on PICC location, to improve safety and minimize the complications of NICU PICCs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".