MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2438611732 · doi:10.1002/lt.24206

Reply

2015· letter· en· W2438611732 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Seal, Markus Selzner, George E. Loss

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationTransplantationCirculatory systemHyperfibrinolysisIschemiaSurgeryCardiologyInternal medicineFibrinolysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TO THE EDITOR: Like many transplant centers, our early experience with donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation yielded high rates of biliary complications despite short cold ischemia times and administration of heparin antemortem in the donor. We recently reported a marked reduction in the rate of biliary complications in DCD liver transplants with routine administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in the early reperfusion period.1 The rationale for using thrombolytic agents in DCD liver transplantation was initially based on the hypothesis that the formation of microthrombi in the peribiliary vasculature during the circulatory arrest period of DCD organ recovery leads to ischemic stricture formation.2 In a letter to the editor, Burlage et al. offer several lines of evidence to challenge this hypothesis and question the benefits of tPA relative to the potential risks. The authors reference a recent study of DCD donors (Maastricht type II)3 and a review of trauma literature4 demonstrating hyperfibrinolysis in the setting of uncontrolled hemodynamic instability. However, a majority of DCD donors used for liver transplantation in the United States and Canada are from controlled circulatory arrest (Maastricht type III) and likely have a different coagulation profile. We caution against presuming a similar hyperfibrinolytic state exists in controlled DCD donors and are skeptical that it would provide significant protection against events leading to biliary stricture formation. In their recent report on the pathophysiology of bile duct injury, op den Dries et al.5 observed a very low incidence of microthrombi in the peribiliary vascular plexus from biopsies of the extrahepatic bile duct margin. The absence of microthrombi in the extrahepatic bile duct, however, does not exclude the presence of intrahepatic microthrombi that could precipitate the most clinically significant diffuse cholangiopathies. In a porcine model of DCD liver transplantation, we have consistently observed microthrombi in the peribiliary arteries of intrahepatic bile ducts only (Fig. 1; M. Selzner, unpublished data). In keeping with this observation, in our clinical study, we did not observe lower rates of extrahepatic strictures but rather a marked reduction in diffuse intrahepatic cholangiopathy. The presumed benefit of tPA is the elimination of intrahepatic microthrombi, improved organ perfusion,6 and reduction of ischemic events.Figure 1: Intrahepatic biopsy from porcine model of DCD liver transplantation before reperfusion. (left) Light microscopy (40×) demonstrating peribiliary vascular thrombosis and (right) electron microscopy demonstrating intravascular crosslinked fibrin.The successful use of DCD donors in liver transplantation is multifactorial, and the clinical practice of DCD liver transplantation will certainly evolve as our understanding of the pathophysiology grows. With the use of a tPA protocol at our centers, the risk of ischemic cholangiopathy in DCD liver transplants is equivalent to standard donors without significant adverse events or hemorrhage related to the use of tPA. Ultimately, we share the same objective of improving outcomes to safely and effectively use livers from DCD donors through continued monitoring of our own results, careful consideration of emerging basic science, and clinical research and incorporation of new innovations in transplantation (eg, ex vivo perfusion).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207