ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2020
The survival analysis of tunnel-cuffed central venous catheter versus arteriovenous hemodialysis access among elderly patients: A retrospective single center study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of hyperphosphatemia and its relation with hemoglobin levels among hemodialysis patients in two hospitals from Syria: a prospective cross-sectional study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently a controversy for the optimal vascular access option in the elderly, regarding their multiple comorbidities and life expectancies. Our study aimed to compare the survival of tunneled cuff venous catheter (CVC) and arteriovenous access (AV access) in elderly patients.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed by electronic medical record review. All hemodialysis patients aged 65 years and over who firstly initiated dialysis from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 at Siriraj hospital, Thailand, were included. The primary outcomes are to compare a 2-year period of survival between CVC and AV access in terms of abandonment, death, and combined outcome. Propensity score covariate and Charlson Comorbidity Score (CCI) were used for multivariable analysis adjustment.
resultsA total of 359 patients were included; 216 (60.2%) patients had initiated hemodialysis via CVC while the rest used AV access. The patients' average ages were 76.7 ± 7.0 and 74.0 ± 5.8 years (p-value<0.001) in the CVC and AV access group, respectively. The 2-year mortality rates of CVC and AV access groups were 24.1% and 15.4%, respectively (p-value = 0.038). Multivariable analyses showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of combined endpoints, i.e., vascular access abandonment and death, was statistically different only in the CCI-adjusted model (aHR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-0.99). Mortality from infection cause was more common in the CVC group than the AV access group.
conclusionCVC access maybe considers an alternative option for frail elderly patients. However, the patient selection is a crucial issue, given higher infection-related mortality in patients using CVC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.