Efficacy of Antimicrobial Lock Solutionsagainst Catheter-Related Infections in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hemodialysis patientsare at increased risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) and catheter thrombosis asdialysis requires regular access to blood circulation through catheters. Antimicrobial Locking Solutions (ALS) containing anticoagulants and antimicrobial agents (antibiotic/non-antibiotic) are used to seal catheters in order to prevent thrombosis and CRBSI. PURPOSE: The investigation of internationalclinical studies regarding the efficacy and safety of the various ALS treatments for CRBSI in hemodialysis patients (HD patients) comparing to conventional approaches such as heparin treatment or catheter removal. METHODOLOGY: The review included prospective or retrospective clinical studies, randomized clinical trials or cohort studies published since 2015. Publications were retrieved from the “Pubmed”, “Google Scholar” and “Elsevier” databases using ‘catheter’, ‘catheter removal’, ‘hemodialysis’ ‘bacteremia’, ‘antimicrobial lock therapy’as key words. RESULTS: 17 articles were found to meet the criteria for this systematic review. These studies investigated locking solutions containing various antibiotic (Cefazolin, Gentamicin, Vancomycin, Cotrimoxazole, Daptomycin, Trimethoprim) or/and non-antibiotic agents (Citrate, taurolidine, ethanol, urokinase, Cathasept) +/- anticoagulants, single or in various combinations. The main objective of these studies was to identify the efficacy of ALS with respect to CRBSI risk rates, catheter exchange rates and related adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial Locking Therapy appears significantly beneficial forHD patients as it reduces CRBSI risk and prolongs catheter survival at considerable rates, so it should be seriously considered for systematic useagainst catheter-related infections. Further researchis required to establish safe and effective prevention and therapeutic protocols as alternatives to catheter removal practices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".