Current state of transfusion practices for ABO‐incompatible pediatric heart transplant patients in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ABO compatibility restriction on solid organ transplantation limits organ availability. In an effort to increase organ availability, pediatric ABO-incompatible heart transplants (ABOiHT) are now performed with similar outcomes to ABO-compatible transplants. Transfusion support can be challenging and currently there are no standard guidelines for blood product support, ABO isohemagglutinin (IH) titer cutoffs for transplant eligibility, or therapeutic intervention for these patients. The study aim was to survey current blood bank and antibody reduction practices for pediatric ABOiHT in the United States and Canada. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to 50 US and Canadian pediatric blood bank directors. Participants were queried regarding pre-, intra-, and postoperative blood product support; ABO IH titer testing; and antibody reduction practices in ABOiHT recipients. RESULTS: We analyzed 21 responses from US and Canadian centers that perform pediatric ABOiHT. There is wide variation in the type of blood products transfused and the modification of these products among respondents in the pre-, intra-, and postoperative settings. The frequency of testing ABO IH titers, implementing therapeutic intervention, and the type of therapeutic intervention also vary greatly among the institutions. CONCLUSION: Transfusion support of children with ABOiHT varies widely among blood banks in the United States and Canada. The choice of blood products and modifications utilized, titer thresholds for organ selection and medical decision points, and antibody reduction strategies are not standardized from center to center. As pediatric ABOiHTs become more common, a better understanding of optimal transfusion support and therapeutic intervention is needed.
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".