Effects of Warm Versus Cold Ischemic Donor Lung Preservation on the Underlying Mechanisms of Injuries During Ischemia and Reperfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ischemia-reperfusion injury related to lung transplantation is a major contributor to early postoperative morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that donation after cardiac death donor lungs experience warm ischemic conditions that activate different injurious mechanisms compared with donor lungs that undergo prolonged cold ischemic conditions. METHODS: Rat donor lungs were preserved under different cold ischemic times (CIT) (12 hours or 18 hours), or under warm ischemia time (WIT) (3 hours) after cardiac death, followed by single left lung transplantation. Lung function was analyzed during the 2-hour reperfusion period. Microscopic injury, cell death, energy status, and inflammatory responses were assessed. RESULTS: Pulmonary oxygenation function was significantly worse in both 18hCIT and WIT groups, accompanied by higher peak airway pressure, acute lung injury scores, and expression of cell death markers compared with the 12hCIT control group. In lung tissue, reperfusion induced increased expression levels of interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and chemokines CCL2, CCL3, CXCL1, and CXCL2 in CIT lungs. Notably, these changes were much lower in the WIT group. Additionally, plasma levels of IL-6, IL-18, CCL2, and vascular endothelial growth factor were significantly higher, and adenosine triphosphate levels were significantly reduced in warm versus cold ischemic lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 12hCIT, posttransplant pathophysiology deteriorated similarly in both 18hCIT and WIT groups. However, tissue adenosine triphosphate levels and inflammatory profiling differed between warm versus cold ischemic donor lungs. These differences should be carefully considered when developing specific therapeutic strategies to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury in lung transplantation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".