Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Line Misuse Among People Who Inject Drugs While on Therapy for Infective Endocarditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs and have infective endocarditis have a high risk of recurrent infective endocarditis and death. We aimed to characterize clinical factors associated with mortality and assess the probability of infective endocarditis recurrence in the presence of death as a competing risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of people who inject drugs, identified between April 5, 2007 and March 15, 2018 with the Modified Duke Criteria for definite infective endocarditis. Fine-Gray sub-distribution and Cox proportional hazards modeling were conducted to determine variables associated with the rate of infective endocarditis recurrence and mortality, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 310 patients with infective endocarditis who inject drugs, 236 experienced a single episode and 74 experienced recurrent episodes. Peripherally inserted central catheter misuse was associated with an increased rate of infective endocarditis recurrence (sub-distribution hazard ratio 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-4.98; P = .02) and mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2.44; 95% CI, 1.15-5.17; P = .02). Non-right-sided infection, peripheral intravenous therapy, and intensive care unit admission were also associated with increased mortality. Oral therapy (HR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91; P = .03), outpatient treatment (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.82; P = .01), and inpatient referral to addiction services (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.70; P = .002) were associated with a decrease in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who misuse their peripherally inserted central catheter are at higher risk of recurrent infective endocarditis and death. Avoidance of peripherally inserted central catheter lines and use of intravenous peripheral therapy did not reduce mortality, but oral therapy was associated with reduced risk. Inpatient addiction services referral is important.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".