Associations between initial dialysis access types and death from dialysis withdrawal in incident patients with kidney failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients receiving haemodialysis via a central venous catheter (HD-CVC) have been shown to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality. It is unclear whether death from dialysis withdrawal is associated with the high mortality risk observed in patients initiated on HD-CVC. Methods: Using the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry, we examined the association between initial dialysis access [HD-CVC, haemodialysis via arteriovenous fistula (HD-AVF), and peritoneal dialysis (PD) via PD catheter (PD-PDC)] and death from dialysis withdrawal in adult patients starting dialysis in Australia between 2005 and 2022, analysed by time-stratified adjusted Cox regression with propensity score-matched cohorts. Results: Of 47 412 incident patients followed for a median of 2.65 years (interquartile range 1.19-4.87), 8170 (17%) died from dialysis withdrawal. Compared with patients initiated on HD-AVF, patients initiated on HD-CVC were more likely to experience death from dialysis withdrawal in the first 3 years after dialysis initiation, but not after 3 years [adjusted hazard ratios 2.43 (95% confidence interval 1.95-3.02), 2.06 (1.67-2.53), 1.57 (1.40-1.76), and 1.06 (0.97-1.15) for 0-6 months, >6-12 months, >1-3 years, and >3 years after dialysis initiation, respectively]. Comparison between patients initiated on HD-CVD and PD-PDC showed similar estimates. No difference in withdrawal risk was observed between patients initiated on HD-AVF and PD-PDC. Conclusions: Patients initiated on HD-CVC were twice as likely to experience early death from dialysis withdrawal compared with patients who had initiated dialysis with HD-AVF or PD-PDC. The increased risks diminished over time and were not observed after 3 years on dialysis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".