Response to “Normothermic Machine Perfusion: A New World Deserving Careful Exploration”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor: We thank Pezzati and colleagues for endorsing our innovative endeavors in ex vivo liver normothermic perfusion (NMP) (1Bral M Gala-Lopez B Bigam D et al.Preliminary single-center canadian experience of human normothermic ex vivo liver perfusion: Results of a clinical trial.Am J Transplant. 2016; (doi:10.1111/ajt.14049.)PubMed Google Scholar,2Pezzati D Liu Q Hassan A Diago Uso T Buccini L Quintini C Normothermic machine perfusion: A new world deserving careful exploration.Am J Transplant. 2017; (doi: 10.1111/ajt.14249.)Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar). We take issue, however, with the surmise that we implicitly assumed the notion that NMP provides superior outcomes in this small 10-liver pilot trial. Our trial was designed with safety, not efficacy, as the primary outcome determinant. Only large-scale randomized controlled studies such as those currently being completed in Europe and in the United States by OrganOx will have the power to determine superiority. The seemingly high rate of donation after cardiac death (DCD; four livers) in our small consecutive series was not an intent on our part to push NMP limits. We acknowledge, however, that in the collective clinical NMP experience to date, there has been preferential use of DCD livers within experimental arms. We see that as positive because it has begun to generate important preliminary safety data that may justify application of NMP with marginal livers in future trials. We accept that the donor risk index has potential limitations and that alternative approaches could have been applied to generate a better control group. We acknowledge that our NMP group had a high proportion of outliers with long perfusion times and that we could have chosen to transplant some of those grafts in shorter time frames. In our opinion, total preservation time represents an overly cautious way to compare outcomes of cold stored versus NMP grafts, as it assumes that cumulative injury over time is similar with both modalities; this is hard for us to accept for metabolically functional livers actively producing bile ex vivo. Matching storage duration in both modalities would be difficult because livers require at least 4–6 h to stabilize during the NMP phase (3Angelico R Perera MT Ravikumar R et al.Normothermic machine perfusion of deceased donor liver grafts is associated with improved postreperfusion hemodynamics.Transplant Direct. 2016; 2: e97Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar, 4Ravikumar R Jassem W Mergental H et al.Liver transplantation after ex vivo normothermic machine preservation: A phase 1 (first-in-man) clinical trial.Am J Transplant. 2016; 16: 1779-1787Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (309) Google Scholar, 5Selzner M Goldaracena N Echeverri J et al.Normothermic ex vivo liver perfusion using steen solution as perfusate for human liver transplantation: First North American results.Liver Transpl. 2016; 22: 1501-1508Crossref PubMed Scopus (134) Google Scholar). Although extended NMP duration should be monitored closely in ongoing safety trials, accrued porcine and limited pilot clinical experience suggests that NMP duration is not a critical variable, especially when kept ≤24 h (4Ravikumar R Jassem W Mergental H et al.Liver transplantation after ex vivo normothermic machine preservation: A phase 1 (first-in-man) clinical trial.Am J Transplant. 2016; 16: 1779-1787Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (309) Google Scholar). However, we recognize that little is known about metabolic substrate depletion or accumulation of toxic waste products on the NMP circuit, which could potentially become a critical issue when extreme time limits are reached. Perhaps we can all agree that safety is paramount, but the new NMP paradigm offers opportunities to explore potential beyond the limited confines of the ice box. The author of this manuscript has no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,035 | 0,045 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,007 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».