Use of an allograft patch in repair of hypoplastic left heart syndrome may complicate future transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cryopreserved allograft tissue used in the Norwood procedure for infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) has the potential to cause marked immunologic sensitization which may complicate potential future heart transplantation, if required. The purpose of this study was to assess the anti-HLA antibody response to allograft patches used in the initial repair of HLHS. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted comparing the panel-reactive antibody levels (PRA) in 12 infants undergoing repair of HLHS with cryopreserved allograft patch to 10 infants undergoing arterial switch for transposition of the great arteries (no allograft tissue used). PRA for Class I (HLA-A, B, C) and Class II (HLA-DR, DQ) antibodies were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively using flow cytometry. RESULTS: The two groups were well matched at the time of surgery (age, weight, gender). Infants in both groups received blood from multiple donors; however, the allograft group received significantly more (12+/-10 vs. 5+/-1 units; P<0.001). By 4 months, most infants receiving allograft tissue had become highly sensitized for both Class I PRA (62+/-40 vs. 0; P=0.002) and Class II PRA (49+/-42 vs. 2+/-3; P=0.022). This response continued to increase at 12 months: Class I PRA (79+/-21 vs. 0; P=0.008) and Class II PRA (66+/-27 vs. 5+/-6; P=0.008). Specificity analysis confirmed antibodies were specific for the donor allograft HLA type. In addition, infants who were coincidently HLA-matched with their allograft did not develop an elevated PRA. CONCLUSIONS: Allograft tissue used in the repair of HLHS is associated with profound donor specific immunologic sensitization in the majority of recipients and may complicate or jeopardize future transplantation. Methods to reduce the immunogenicity of cryopreserved allograft tissue used for arch reconstruction requires further investigation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".