MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2506077334 · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000001378

Premortem Heparin Administration and Location of Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Interventions in DCD

2016· letter· en· W2506077334 sur OpenAlexaff
Andreas H. Kramer, Christopher Doig

Notice bibliographique

RevueTransplantation · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensFoothills Medical CentreMedical Council of Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineObservational studyHeparinIntensive care unitRetrospective cohort studyTransplantationPsychological interventionCohort studyIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The meta-analysis by Cao and colleagues1 pools data from retrospective cohort studies to assess the importance of location of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (WLST) (intensive care unit [ICU] vs operating theater [OT]) and premortem heparin administration in liver transplantation after donation after cardiocirculatory determination of death (DCD). The authors assert that “withdrawal in the OT and premortem heparin administration improve DCD liver transplant outcomes.” These conclusions are overstated and not sufficiently reflective considering the low quality of data: None of the studies actually compared outcomes based on location of WLST or premortem heparin administration. Rather, they were single-center comparisons of transplantation outcomes in DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD). Studies were performed over a span of longer than 30 years, in multiple countries, at centers with varying degrees of experience with DCD, and with substantial heterogeneity in cold and warm ischemic time (WIT). An association from observational studies does not prove causation, particularly in an unadjusted univariate analysis. Such data are, at best, hypothesis-generating. Outcomes were consistently superior with transplantation after DBD, irrespective of the location of WLST and use of heparin. Even if the odds of poor outcomes with DCD versus DBD were numerically greater when WLST occurred in ICU, or when heparin was withheld, no comparative analyses were presented in the article. For the data in Figures 31 and 51 (allograft and patient survival, respectively), we have generated mixed effects models to compare studies where WLST occurred in the ICU versus OT. In neither case were the results statistically significant (P = 0.58 and 0.13, respectively). Similarly, for data presented in Figure 71 (primary graft nonfunction), there was no significant difference based on whether or not premortem heparin was administered (P = 0.21). We have expanded the authors' analysis to assess allograft failure based on whether or not heparin was administered (data not presented in the manuscript). The odds ratio for graft failure in DCD versus DBD was 1.7 (1.3-2.3) with heparin and 1.6 (0.6-4.6) without (Figure 1; P = 0.92).FIGURE 1: Comparison of 1-year rates of allograft failure in liver transplantation following donation after cardiocirculatory death vs. donation after brain death, categorized by use of premortem heparin.Minimizing WIT is important, but existing literature does not demonstrate that WLST should occur in the OT. Although WIT may be slightly longer, the ICU environment is usually much better suited to provide end-of-life care to organ donors and their families. Despite the rationale for premortem anticoagulation, there is little human data to support the need for it. Outcomes have proven favorable in jurisdictions where premortem heparin is not used.2,3 The impact of anticoagulation in DCD may vary depending on the organ system.3–5 There is essentially no research assessing optimal dosing of heparin in DCD, which is typically much higher than what is required for therapeutic anticoagulation (>300 units/kg vs ≈ 80 units/kg). There is justifiable concern that such high-dose heparin could worsen intracranial hemorrhage in brain-injured patients. Heparin is commonly administered before WLST, even though a sizable proportion of potential donors do not die within the requisite time frame. To avoid this scenario, some centers wait to administer heparin until it is clear that the patient will actually become an organ donor. The work of Cao and colleagues highlights the need to better study these issues, rather than justifying a call for practice changes that are unsupported by existing data and may compromise optimal end-of-life care in DCD donors.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,418
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,663

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,303
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTransplantationMême sujetOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesTravaux en français237 207