ArticleCVIR endovascular2025
Tunneled dialysis catheter placement in intensive care unit patients: influence of catheter tip design on clinical performance.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluates catheter failure rates between a helical-tip catheter and a traditional split-tip catheter among intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) placement. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed 1734 TDCs placed over seven years in a retrospective fashion, focusing on 340 catheters used in an ICU setting. Of these, 112 were VectorFlow catheters (32.9%), and 228 were Ash-Split catheters (67.1%). Catheter failure rates due to malfunction or infection were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, while contributing factors were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards modeling.
resultsWithin 90 days, 34.8% of patients experienced catheter failure. The VectorFlow catheter demonstrated superior unassisted patency at 30, 60, 90, and 180 days compared to the Ash-Split catheter (87.4 ± 3.6%, 78.0 ± 5.1%, 75.1 ± 5.0% and 60.1 ± 8.2% compared with 75.0 ± 3.3%, 62.8 ± 4.1%, 60.7 ± 4.2% and 44.3 ± 5.5% respectively, P = 0.022). Adjusted hazard ratios indicated Ash-Split catheters were nearly twice as likely to fail according to both univariate (1.72, P = 0.024) and multivariate (1.89, P = 0.017) modeling.
conclusionThe findings suggest that the VectorFlow catheter demonstrates significantly better primary unassisted patency over the Ash-Split design in ICU settings, supporting its preferential use.
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.