MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415424907 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfaf116.0738

#3717 Early outcomes of KiteLock (EDTA 4%): a new CVC locking solution

2025· article· en· W4415424907 on OpenAlexaff
Charmaine Lok, Marisa Battistella, Gary Manzanilla

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentral venous catheterHemodialysisThrombusFibrinAnticoagulantCatheterDialysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Aims Tunneled hemodialysis (HD) central venous catheter (CVC) use is often complicated by CVC dysfunction, typically due to intraluminal or extraluminal thrombus or fibrin sheath formation which interferes with blood flow through the CVC lumen. Interdialytic CVC “locking” with heparin or citrate of various concentrations is commonly used as prophylaxis. Despite this, CVC dysfunction remains common, often requiring repeated installations of thrombolytic agent (r-TPA), CVC exchange or fibrin sheath disruption to manage CVC dysfunction. KiteLock™ (EDTA 4%), is a new CVC locking solution that has anticoagulant and anti-infective properties. We compared the rates of r-TPA use and CVC exchange in patients at high risk of CVC dysfunction who received CVC locking with citrate 4% (Period I) and KiteLock (Period II). Method This was a prospective cohort study of long-term HD patients (3x/week for 4hours/treatment) in a large academic incentre dialysis facility who required tunneled CVC and deemed at high risk of CVC dysfunction. High risk CVC patients were defined as those who required 3 or more installations of TPA in a 14 day period despite use of citrate 4% lock. Patients’ CVCs were locked with citrate 4% from Dec 19 2022 to Dec 18 2023 (Period I). From January 1 2024 to June 30 2024 (Period II), high risk patients were locked with KiteLock (EDTA 4%). The CVC locking procedure was the same for both citrate 4% and KiteLock (EDTA 4%) solutions, with the venous and arterial ports filled to their volume with the respective locking solutions. In both study periods, patients were followed weekly to capture r-TPA use and CVC exchange (ordered at the discretion of attending nephrologist) and CVC-related bacteremia events (determined by a separate infection control committee). Data was cross checked via nursing flowsheets, and reports in the electronic medical records (EPIC). Results In the study period, 496 patients used tunnelled CVCs, 106 patients received r-TPA, and 39 patients were deemed high risk. In Period I there were 5021 CVC days and in Period II there were 3768 CVC days. Figure 1 illustrates the rates of r-TPA use and CVC exchanges (in high risk patients) and CVC-related bacteremia (for all patients) in the two study periods. In patients at high risk of CVC dysfunction, compared to CVC locked with citrate, those locked with KiteLock showed: 33% reduction in r-TPA use per 1000 CVC days. 11% reduction in the rate of CVC exchange per 1000 CVC days. Conclusion This prospective cohort study showed that patients at high risk of CVC dysfunction had a lower rate of r-TPA use and CVC exchange when their CVC were locked with KiteLock (EDTA 4%) compared with citrate 4%. Further study is required in a rigorously conducted clinical trial.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207