Etiologies and Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Failure in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Insight Into the EFRAIM Multicenter Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory complications of solid organ transplant (SOT) are a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge when requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We aimed at describing this challenge in a prospective cohort of SOT recipients admitted in the ICU. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of an international cohort of immunocompromised patients admitted in the ICU for an acute respiratory failure, we analyzed all SOT recipients and compared their severity, etiologic diagnosis, prognosis, and outcome according to the performance of an invasive diagnostic strategy (encompassing a fiber-optic bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage), the type of transplanted organ, and the need of invasive ventilation at day 1. RESULTS: Among 1611 patients included in the primary study, 142 were SOT recipients (kidney, n = 73; 51.4%; lung, n = 33; 23.2%; liver, n = 29; 20.4%; heart, n = 7; 4.9%). Lung transplant recipients were younger than other SOT recipients, and severity did not differ across type of received organ. An invasive diagnostic strategy was more frequently performed in lung transplant recipients with a trend toward a higher rate of bacterial etiology in lung than kidney transplant recipients. Overall ICU survival of SOT recipients was 75.4%. Invasive diagnostic strategy, type of transplanted organ, and need of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 1 did not affect ICU prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: ICU management of hypoxemic acute respiratory failure in SOT recipients translated into a low ICU mortality rate, whatever the transplanted organ or the acute respiratory failure cause. The post-ICU burden of acute respiratory failure SOT recipients remains to be investigated.
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) | 0.001 | 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".