Changes to indications for tunneled cuffed catheter use in hemodialysis patients: A single‐center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As the number of elderly end-stage renal disease patients lacking suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is increasing, indications for tunnel cuffed catheters (TCCs) may be expanding. This study aimed to clarify changes over time in the number of patients with TCC and indications for TCCs. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study analyzed 143 catheters for 95 patients who inserted TCCs between July 2005 and July 2017. Patients were divided into two groups (early- and late-phase groups) based on the median observational period. Demographic data and clinical information were then compared. FINDINGS: Fifty TCCs were inserted in the early phase group, and 93 TCCs were inserted in the late-phase group. The late-phase group was older (77 vs. 70 years; P = 0.003) and showed a higher frequency of hypertensive nephropathy (29% vs. 14%; P < 0.05) and a lower frequency of a history of cardiovascular disease (52.7% vs. 70.0%; P = 0.045). In the late-phase group, indications for bridge vascular access (0% vs. 11.8%; P < 0.05) or severe cardiac dysfunction (8.0% vs. 20.5%; P < 0.05) were increased. In addition, the late-phase group showed increases in percentage of patients with the catheter inserted in the femoral vein (10.0% vs. 23.7%; P = 0.047), nephrologists performing catheter insertion (56.0% vs. 87.1%; P < 0.001), and the patients who underwent superficialization of the brachial artery (28.0% vs. 46.2%; P = 0.034). Significant differences in catheter survival, incidence of complications, reasons for catheter removal, or incidence of catheter-related infection were not observed between groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with indications for TCC may be increasing due to an increase in elderly end-stage renal disease patients whose activities of daily living have decreased. In addition, indications for bridge vascular access were widely accepted in the late-phase 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".