Incidence and severity of primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation using rejected grafts reconditioned with ex vivo lung perfusion†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is a novel technique used to evaluate and recondition marginal or rejected grafts. Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is a major early complication after lung transplantation (LTx). The use of marginal or initially rejected grafts may increase its incidence and severity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of PGD after LTx using rejected grafts reconditioned with EVLP. METHODS: PGD has been evaluated immediately after LTx (t0) and after 72 h (t72) in patients receiving standard (Group A) or reconditioned (Group B) grafts. EVLP was performed using a controlled acellular perfusion according to the Toronto technique. RESULTS: From July 2011 to February 2013, 36 LTxs have been performed: 28 patients (21 M/7 F, mean age 51.7 ± 14.7 years) in Group A and 8 (6 M/2 F, mean age 46.6 ± 9.8 years) in Group B (successful recondition rate of 73%, 8 of 11 cases). Incidence rate of PGD 3 at t0 and at t72 (Group A versus Group B) was 50 vs 37% (P = NS) and 25 vs 0% (P = NS), respectively. Post-transplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was required in 5 and 2 patients in Groups A and B, respectively (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The use of initially rejected grafts treated with EVLP does not increase the incidence and severity of PGD after LTx. Although comparison of PGD 3 incidence in the two groups did not reach a statistical difference, all EVLP patients suffering from severe PGD early after transplant recovered normal lung function at 72 h, suggesting a protective role of EVLP against PGD occurrence and severity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".