MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209009415 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.050

65 Complication rate of cuffed versus uncuffed PICC lines placed by interventional radiology in pediatric patients

2021· article· en· W3209009415 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Al Bandari, John Donnellan, Filomena Canci Tavares

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComplicationCatheterReferralSurgeryThrombosisParenteral nutritionPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Paediatric Radiology Background Peripherally inserted central catheters are commonly used in pediatrics to offer stable access for administering prolonged courses of antibiotics, chemotherapy, parenteral nutrition, or other intravenous fluids. Objectives To assess the complication rates of cuffed versus uncuffed PICCs in a pediatric tertiary referral centre. Design/Methods Research ethics board approval was sought and granted. A dual arm study design was employed with a retrospective chart review of PICCs inserted between June 2017 - June 2018, and a prospective chart review of PICCS inserted between January 2019 - June 2019 at a large tertiary pediatric referral center. Data collected from the electronic record included age, weight, and diagnosis. Line type, size, location, insertion and removal dates, and indications were recorded. Primary outcome was removal of PICC after completion of therapy or premature removal due to the following complications: infection, thrombosis, or mechanical failure (defined as catheter breakage, blockage, or dislodgement). Results The study included 266 patients. Across all patients weighing < 10 kg, 90.5% of those with cuffed PICCs and 65% of those with uncuffed catheters completed therapy. The predominant complication resulting in premature removal was mechanical failure, but this was only observed in patients with uncuffed catheters (25%). Infection was also observed only in uncuffed catheters (10%), and thrombosis (4.8%) was only in the cuffed lines. For patients weighing ≥ 10 kg, 86% of those with cuffed PICCs and 77.2% with uncuffed catheters completed therapy. More complications were observed in uncuffed catheters (infection 7.7%, mechanical failure 6.6%, thrombosis 5%). Infection resulting in premature removal occurred in 7% of cuffed catheters. There was no reported mechanical failure or thrombosis in the cuffed group. The distribution of diagnoses was relatively homogenous between the groups for most diagnoses. However, there was a higher percentage of oncology patients in the uncuffed group (23%) than the cuffed group (7%) due to the need for power-injectable lines, which were not available in a cuffed variant during this study. Conclusion All-cause pediatric PICC-associated complications rate in the neonate group for patients < 10kg in the uncuffed group is 35% and in the cuffed group is 4.8%. Whereas in the pediatric group ≥ 10kg, all-cause pediatric PICC-associated complications rate in the uncuffed group is 19.3% and in the cuffed group is 7%. There were no mechanical complications in the cuffed group and the vast majority of lines made it to completion of therapy. This work supports utilization of cuffed PICC lines in selected pediatric patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→