The evolving risk of sudden cardiac death after heart transplant. An analysis of the ISHLT Thoracic Transplant Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is responsible for ~10% of post-heart transplant deaths. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the ISHLT registry evaluating the risk of post-transplant SCD. Adult heart transplant recipients (2004-2014) surviving the first year were included. We used multivariable multistate competing risk survival analysis to evaluate the impact of history of treated rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) on SCD risk. We used a probabilistic analytical model and Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the impact of CAV severity and graft dysfunction on SCD. We included 25 242 recipients. During a median follow-up of 4.7 (2.3-7.0) years, 582 patients died suddenly. Treated rejection (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.36-2.31) and CAV (HR 3.32, 95% CI 2.73-4.03) were important risk factors for SCD. The estimated SCD risk in patients with severe CAV without and with graft dysfunction was 3.2% (95% CI 2.0-4.6) and 5.4% (95% CI 3.8-7.0), respectively, at 2 years from the CAV diagnosis, and 4.9% (95% CI 3.4-6.5) and 8.0% (95% CI 6.1-10.0), respectively, in those who also had treated rejection. These results provide evidence that recipients with severe CAV and graft dysfunction or treated rejection are at clinically significant increased SCD risk. The benefit of ICD post-transplant remains uncertain.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".