Saline-Lock Versus Continuous Infusion: Maintaining Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Access in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In children, peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) are maintained by either a continuous infusion of fluid "to keep vein open" (TKO) or a saline lock (SL). There is a widespread perception that TKO prolongs PIV patency, but there is a lack of evidence for this. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in duration of PIV patency between TKO and SL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, time-allocated study included patients from newborn to 17 years of age admitted to our pediatric ward. Patients enrolled in the first 3 months were assigned to TKO, and patients in the latter 3 months were assigned to SL. Primary outcome was duration of functional patency of the first PIV during the time of TKO or SL. Secondary outcomes included PIV-related complications and patient and caregiver satisfaction. RESULTS: = .71). There were no significant differences in complication rates or overall patient and caregiver satisfaction. One patient in the TKO group had their PIV removed because of risk of strangulation from tubing. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences between TKO and SL in the duration of PIV patency, complication rates, and overall patient and caregiver satisfaction in our pediatric population. Overall, SL is a safe and reasonable alternative to TKO in maintaining PIV patency in children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".