Vascular access devices and associated complications in paediatric critical care: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though 60-80% of hospitalized patients have an intravascular device placed during hospitalization, there is a substantial risk of complication related to the placement, maintenance and removal of these devices. The objectives of this study were to describe vascular access device use, device complications and lumen dysfunction. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted over a 4.5 years period, in two quaternary, university-affiliated paediatric intensive care units (ICU). Eligible patients were admitted to either the paediatric or cardiac ICU and had one or more vascular access devices in-situ at the time of enrolment. Vascular access devices were defined as any external connection directly into the circulation including peripheral and central veins, arteries or bone marrow. Consistent with practice in the studied ICUs removal of peripheral catheters was regarded as due to dysfunction or complication. RESULTS: 220 patients, 683 devices and 924 lumens were observed. The device complication rate was 21% and the lumen complication rate was 25%. The median duration without complication was 18 days for arterial catheters, 14 days for central venous catheters; 13 days for peripherally inserted central catheters and 4 days for peripheral intravenous catheters. On one third of all patient days, the volume of fluid administered to maintain VADs was equal to or greater than 20% of the total hourly total fluid intake. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 5 vascular devices had one or more complications in ICU, most devices continued to be used without removal, and some complications resolved. The implications of the fluids infused to maintain device function warrants further study, as do strategies to resolve or limit the their complications 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".