A Randomized Trial of Inhaled Nitric Oxide to Prevent Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury after Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhalation of nitric oxide (NO) has been advocated as a method to prevent ischemia-reperfusion injury after lung transplantation. We enrolled 84 patients into a concealed, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effect of inhaled NO (20 ppm NO or nitrogen) initiated 10 minutes after reperfusion on outcomes after lung transplantation. The groups (n = 42) were balanced with respect to age, sex, lung disease, procedure, and total ischemic times. PaO2/FIO2 ratios were similar on admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (NO 361 +/- 134; control patients 357 +/- 132), and over the duration of the study. There were no differences in hemodynamics between the two groups. Severe reperfusion injury (PaO2/FIO2 < 150) was present at the time of admission to the ICU in 14.6% NO patients versus 9.5% of control patients (p = 0.48). The groups had similar median times to first successful trial of unassisted breathing (25 vs. 27 hours; p = 0.76), successful extubation (32 vs. 34 hours; p = 0.65), ICU discharge (3.0 days for both groups), and hospital discharge (27 vs. 29 days; p = 0.563). Five NO versus six control patients died during their hospital stay. Adjusting for age, sex, lung disease etiology, presence of pulmonary hypertension, and total ischemic time did not alter these results. In conclusion, we did not detect a significant effect of inhaled NO administered 10 minutes after reperfusion on physiologic variables or outcomes in lung transplant patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".