Changes in patient characteristics following cardiac transplantation: the Montreal Heart Institute experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Heart transplantation is no longer considered an experimental operation, but rather a standard treatment; nevertheless the context has changed substantially in recent years owing to donor shortage. The aim of this study was to review the heart transplant experience focusing on very long-term survival (≥ 20 years) and to compare the initial results with the current era. Methods: From April 1983 through April 1995, 156 consecutive patients underwent heart transplantation. Patients who survived 20 years or longer (group 1) were compared with patients who died within 20 years after surgery (group 2). To compare patient characteristics with the current era, we evaluated our recent 5-year experience (group 3; patients who underwent transplantation between 2010 and 2015), focusing on differences in terms of donor and recipient characteristics. Results: Group 1 (n = 46, 30%) included younger patients (38 ± 11 v. 48 ± 8 yr, p = 0.001), a higher proportion of female recipients (28% v. 8%, p = 0.001) and a lower prevalence of ischemic heart disease (42% v. 65%, p = 0.001) than group 2 (n = 110, 70%). Patients in group 3 (n = 54) were older (52 ± 12 v. 38 ± 11 yr, p = 0.001), sicker (rate of hospital admission at transplantation 48% v. 20%, p = 0.001) and transplanted with organs from older donors (42 ± 15 v. 29 ± 11 yr, p = 0.001) than those in group 1. Conclusion: Very long-term survival (≥ 20 yr) was observed in 30% of patients transplanted during the first decade of our experience. This outcome will be difficult to duplicate in the current era considering our present population of older and sicker patients transplanted with organs from older donors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".