Pediatric heart transplantation across a positive crossmatch: First year results from the CTOTC-04 multi-institutional study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sensitization is common in pediatric heart transplant candidates and waitlist mortality is high. Transplantation across a positive crossmatch may reduce wait time, but is considered high risk. We prospectively recruited consecutive candidates at eight North American centers. At transplantation, subjects were categorized as nonsensitized or sensitized (presence of ≥1 HLA antibody with MFI ≥1000 using single antigen beads). Sensitized subjects were further classified as complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-crossmatch) positive or negative and as donor-specific antibodies (DSA) positive or negative. Immunosuppression was standardized. CDC-crossmatch–positive subjects also received perioperative antibody removal, maintenance corticosteroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin. The primary endpoint was the 1 year incidence rate of a composite of death, retransplantation, or rejection with hemodynamic compromise. 317 subjects were screened, 290 enrolled and 240 transplanted (51 with pretransplant DSA, 11 with positive CDC-crossmatch). The incidence rates of the primary endpoint did not differ statistically between groups; nonsensitized 6.7% (CI: 2.7%, 13.3%), sensitized crossmatch positive 18.2% (CI: 2.3%, 51.8%), sensitized crossmatch negative 10.7% (CI: 5.7%, 18.0%), P = .2354. The primary endpoint also did not differ by DSA status. Freedom from antibody-mediated and cellular rejection was lower in the crossmatch positive group and/or in the presence of DSA. Follow-up will determine if acceptable outcomes can be achieved long-term. Sensitization is common in pediatric heart transplant candidates and waitlist mortality is high. Transplantation across a positive crossmatch may reduce wait time, but is considered high risk. We prospectively recruited consecutive candidates at eight North American centers. At transplantation, subjects were categorized as nonsensitized or sensitized (presence of ≥1 HLA antibody with MFI ≥1000 using single antigen beads). Sensitized subjects were further classified as complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-crossmatch) positive or negative and as donor-specific antibodies (DSA) positive or negative. Immunosuppression was standardized. CDC-crossmatch–positive subjects also received perioperative antibody removal, maintenance corticosteroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin. The primary endpoint was the 1 year incidence rate of a composite of death, retransplantation, or rejection with hemodynamic compromise. 317 subjects were screened, 290 enrolled and 240 transplanted (51 with pretransplant DSA, 11 with positive CDC-crossmatch). The incidence rates of the primary endpoint did not differ statistically between groups; nonsensitized 6.7% (CI: 2.7%, 13.3%), sensitized crossmatch positive 18.2% (CI: 2.3%, 51.8%), sensitized crossmatch negative 10.7% (CI: 5.7%, 18.0%), P = .2354. The primary endpoint also did not differ by DSA status. Freedom from antibody-mediated and cellular rejection was lower in the crossmatch positive group and/or in the presence of DSA. Follow-up will determine if acceptable outcomes can be achieved long-term.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».