ArticleBMC nephrology2022
Direct arterial puncture for hemodialysis, a neglected but simple and valuable vascular access.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study is to present the prevalence and effects of direct arterial puncture (DAP) for hemodialysis patients, and to introduce optimal option for the vascular access (VA) in certain hemodialysis patients with poor condition of vascular or cardiac function in a compelling situation.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study. Demographic characteristics and laboratory data were extracted from the health care system. Relevant DAP information was collected by a questionnaire. Case-control matching was performed to compare the hemodialysis adequacy between DAP and other VAs.
resultsA total of 526 patients were selected for analysis by convenience sampling, of which 38 patients relied https://www.baidu.com/link?url=eaDh8Hn-yZGJyDB0_h4zBenKd7qY1yX-KNxO-qU49gktQOGTJJg3slTjIbG095st4hRfprQIHRjfhfeGOZyH73y8tvSUCwMmvWbUhyix2ZK on DAP for hemodialysis. The main reasons using DAP for hemodialysis included the cost of arteriovenous access creation or maintenance in 19(50%) patients and the poor condition of vascular or cardiac function in 14 (39.5%) patients. Some complications of DAP occurred, such as aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm in 16(42.1%) patients, infiltration in 12 (31.6%) patients. Differences in hemodialysis adequacy were not statistically significant between DAP and other types of VA.
conclusionIn conclusion, DAP can meet the need of prescription hemodialysis, yet it has several limitations. Although the patients in our study were long-term dependent on DAP for hemodialysis with various reasons, we do not recommend DAP as a long-term vascular access if better options are available. However, DAP should not be overlooked to be a supplemental VA for hemodialysis with adequate blood flow and availability for individuals with poor condition of vascular or cardiac function in a compelling situation.
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.