Does ABO-incompatible and ABO-compatible neonatal heart transplant have equivalent survival?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A best evidence topic (BET) in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether ABO-incompatible (ABO-I) heart transplant recipients have a similar survival rate as an ABO-compatible (ABO-C) transplant in the pediatric population <1 year of age. Altogether more than 112 papers were found using the reported search, of which 10 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. Generally, ABO-I transplantation has been associated with the neonatal population because of the relative immaturity of the immune system for the first year of life. In the BET the search-term 'pediatric' was used as a method to ensure retrieval all relevant papers. However, the vast majority of the patients reviewed were <1 year of age with specific techniques undertaken to modulate preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative isohemagglutinin titer levels with rejection monitoring. Therefore, the BET conclusions should not be applied to the pediatric group as a broad age classification. Two large series are of particular interest. Patel et al. reviewed all primary heart transplantation recipients < or =1 year of age in the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (UNOS/OPTN) registry (ABO-I=35 vs. ABO-C=556). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (ABO-I=5.9% vs. ABO-C=8.8%; P=0.55); one-year mortality (ABO-I=16.6% vs. ABO-C=14.7%; P=0.77); graft rejection (ABO-I=1 vs. ABO-C=0); and graft failure (ABO-I=24% vs. ABO-C=24%; P>0.99). Three-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 70% (P=0.85). Propensity score adjusted analysis did not implicate ABO-I as a predictor of mortality [hazard ratio (HR)=3.6, confidence interval (CI): 0.2-49.0; P=0.33]. The ABO-I group demonstrated an increased need for pacemaker (ABO-I=3.1% vs. ABO-C=0.4%; P=0.03) and higher stroke rate (ABO-I=12.9% vs. ABO-C=1.3%; P<0.0001). Dipchand et al. published the results of the Toronto cohort from 1992 to 2006 (ABO-I=16 vs. ABO-C=38). The median age at transplantation (ABO-I=88 days vs. ABO-C=84 days; P=0.82) and the number of neonatal transplant recipients (ABO-I=17% vs. ABO-C=22%; P=0.59) was similar. The freedom from post-transplantation death or retransplantation was equivalent at one year (ABO-I=77% vs. ABO-C=84%) and seven years (ABO-I=74% vs. ABO-C=74%; P=0.87). No significant difference was observed for the five-year freedom from: rejection (ABO-I=60% vs. ABO-C=45%; P=0.41); renal dysfunction (ABO-I=67% vs. ABO-C=72%; P=0.70); allograft vasculopathy (ABO-I=87% vs. ABO-C=78%; P=0.45); and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) (ABO-I=87% vs. ABO-C=86%; P=0.93). We conclude that ABO-I transplantation is comparable to ABO-C transplantation, with several retrospective papers concluding there is no difference in mortality, morbidity or graft failure in the pediatric population <1 year of age.
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 | 0.016 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".