Flexitrate regional citrate anticoagulation in continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration: a retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flexitrate, an innovative regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) protocol, was compared to traditional RCA (tRCA) and Heparin anticoagulation protocols in intensive care patients treated with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). METHODS: A single-center, retrospective, cohort study, was done in a 26-bed intensive care unit in a large community hospital. Eighty dialysis sessions (Flexitrate = 2852 h, tRCA = 3580 h and Heparin = 2026 h), performed in 53 patients, were evaluated for filter life, RCA control, and metabolic control. RESULTS: In the Flexitrate cohort, 3.8% of filters clotted, compared to 16.9% with tRCA and 28.3% with Heparin (p < 0.001 for Flexitrate compared to either tRCA or Heparin). Filter survival was significantly improved with Flexitrate compared to tRCA (HR 0.24, p = 0.018) or Heparin (HR 0.14, p = 0.004). Anticoagulation control was superior with Flexitrate with Patient Ionized Calcium out of target a median of 16% of the time, compared to 27% for tRCA (p < 0.001). Filter Ionized Calcium was out of target a median of 6.8% of the time, compared to 23% for tRCA (p = 0.03). Flexitrate produced significantly less alkalosis, hypernatremia, and hypocalcemia than tRCA, and overall metabolic control was comparable to Heparin anticoagulation. The only adverse metabolic outcome with Flexitrate was increased hypomagnesemia. CONCLUSIONS: The Flexitrate protocol extended filter life, delivered more consistent anticoagulation, and provided superior metabolic control compared to a tRCA protocol. Filter life was superior to Heparin anticoagulation, with similar metabolic control. A randomized control trial comparing these protocols is recommended.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".