ArticleCureus2025
Epidemiology of Vascular Access-Associated Infections in Hemodialysis: A Single-Center Retrospective Study in Tbilisi, Georgia (January 2022-January 2025).
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Infections related to vascular access (VA) remain one of the most serious complications in hemodialysis (HD), contributing substantially to patient morbidity and mortality. Central venous catheters (CVCs) confer a substantially higher infection risk compared to arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs), but local epidemiological data are limited. Objective We aimed to investigate the incidence of VA-related infections by access type (CVC vs. AVF, using access-days) and to identify risk factors, with secondary outcomes including infection-related hospitalization and mortality, in HD patients at the largest single center in Tbilisi, Georgia (2022-2025). Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 386 adult HD patients from January 2022 to January 2025. Demographic, clinical, and VA data were analyzed. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models assessed associations between VA type, diabetes, and infection or hospitalization, accounting for person-time at risk. Kaplan-Meier curves compared time-to-infection, and incidence rates were calculated per 1,000 access-days with corresponding incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and attributable fractions. Results Out of 386 patients, 208 (53.9%) used CVCs and 178 (46.1%) used AVFs. A total of 116 (30.1%) patients developed bacterial infections, of which 69 (59.5%) were access-related. The infection rate was markedly higher among CVC users compared with AVF users (0.731 vs. 0.042 infections per 1,000 access-days; incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 17.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.21-41.79; p < 0.001). The incidence rate difference was 0.689 infections per 1,000 access-days (95% CI: 0.50-0.88; p < 0.001), with an attributable fraction among the exposed of 94.2% (95% CI: 87.8-97.6). In the univariate Cox regression analysis, CVC use was strongly associated with an increased hazard of bloodstream infections (BSIs) (hazard ratio (HR) = 19.18; 95% CI: 8.72-42.23; p < 0.001) and infection-related hospitalization (HR = 4.10; 95% CI: 2.50-6.71; p < 0.001). Diabetes mellitus was not significantly associated with BSIs (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.55-1.51; p = 0.715) but showed a weak association with hospitalization (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.00-1.07; p = 0.041). Age was not significantly related to either outcome. Infection-related mortality occurred in 23 (19.8%) patients. Conclusions Using CVCs is a significant and modifiable risk factor for VA-related infections in HD patients. Strategies to reduce CVC use focus on timely AVF placement, and strengthening infection control protocols is essential to decrease infection-related morbidity and mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.