The use of recombinant human activated protein C (drotrecogin alpha) in solid organ transplant recipients: case series and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Septic shock occurs frequently in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Standard therapy includes fluid resuscitation, the administration of antimicrobials, and source control of the infection. Adjunctive therapy with recombinant human activated protein C (rhaPC), also called drotrecogin alpha, is another treatment that is used in patients but has not been studied in SOT patients. Concerns regarding the use of this drug in this patient population include the risk of bleeding and the potential to adversely affect graft survival. Here we report the largest case series of SOT recipients with septic shock who received rhaPC. This was a retrospective chart review that looked at the impact of this drug in the SOT population. In this single-center study, we identified 17 patients with a SOT and septic shock who received rhaPC. Six of the patients underwent kidney transplants, 5 received lung transplants, 4 received cadaveric liver transplants, and 2 received combined kidney/pancreas transplants. The average APACHE II score was 26.6 ± 5.5; all patients were undergoing mechanical ventilation and receiving vasopressors at the time of rhaPC administration. Overall mortality in the group was 23.5% (4/17) at 28 days post infusion. All of the deaths were due to complications of septic shock. Allograft survival was present in 13/17 (76.5%) of the patients at 28 days. Bleeding occurred in 17.6% of patients (3/17). The use of rhaPC appears to be associated with a favorable effect on mortality, with the potential for increased risk of bleeding. Clinicians must balance this risk with the potential benefit of this drug until further research can be conducted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".