Comparison of vascular access patency and patient survival between native arteriovenous fistula and synthetic arteriovenous graft according to age group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is historically known to be the ideal option for vascular access (VA) for hemodialysis compared with arteriovenous graft (AVG). However, this approach has been recently questioned in the aging population because of their poor vessel quality and multiple comorbidities. METHODS: Data from a total of 2200 patients from the VA category of The Catholic Medical Center nephrology registry from March 2009 to February 2017 were analyzed. We compared VA patency and patient survival between two groups, AVF and AVG, according to age. FINDINGS: Compared with the AVG group, survival benefit in the AVF group continued even in patients ≥80 years. In the whole population, all the primary patency (PP), primary-assisted patency (PAP), and secondary patency (SP) measures were superior in the AVF group. With regard to subgroups, PP was comparable between the two groups in patients ≥65 years, whereas PAP and SP were superior in the AVF group even in septuagenarian patients who are from 70 to 79 years old. In patients ≥80 years, all the patency measures were comparable between the two groups. When the separate comparison of lower-arm AVF (or upper-arm AVF) and AVG, lower-arm AVF failed to demonstrate its superiority in any kind of patency in septuagenarian patients compared with AVG, whereas upper-arm AVF demonstrated its superiority in PAP and SP in septuagenarian patients. However, even upper-arm AVF failed to demonstrate its superiority in any kind of patency in patients ≥80 years. DISCUSSION: Arteriovenous fistula if using upper-arm vessel showed the superior VA patency up to septuagenarian patients, whereas, in HD patients ≥80 years, AVF and AVG were comparable in VA patency.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".