Hearts From DCD Donors Display Acceptable Biventricular Function After Heart Transplantation in Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac transplantation is in decline, in contrast to other solid organs where the number of solid organ transplants from donors after circulatory death (DCD) is increasing. Hearts from DCD donors are not currently utilized due to concerns that they may suffer irreversible cardiac injury with resultant poor graft function. Using a large animal model, we tested the hypothesis that hearts from DCD donors would be suitable for transplantation. Donor pigs were subjected to hypoxic cardiac arrest (DCD) followed by 15 min of warm ischemia and resuscitation on cardiopulmonary bypass, or brainstem death (BSD) via intracerebral balloon inflation. Cardiac function was assessed through load-independent measures and magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. After resuscitation, DCD hearts had near normal contractility, although stroke volume was reduced, comparable to BSD hearts. DCD hearts had a significant decline in phosphocreatine and increase in inorganic phosphate during the hypoxic period, with a return to baseline levels after reperfusion. After transplantation, cardiac function was comparable between BSD and DCD groups. Therefore, in a large animal model, the DCD heart maintains viability and recovers function similar to that of the BSD heart and may be suitable for clinical transplantation. Further study is warranted on optimal reperfusion strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".