The Position of the Heart During Normothermic Ex Situ Heart Perfusion is an Important Factor in Preservation and Recovery of Myocardial Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ex situ heart perfusion (ESHP) is being investigated as a method for the continuous preservation of the myocardium in a semiphysiologic state for subsequent transplantation. Most methods of ESHP position the isolated heart in a hanging (H) state, representing a considerable departure from the in vivo anatomical positioning of the heart and may negatively affect the functional preservation of the heart. In the current study, cardiac functional and metabolic parameters were assessed in healthy pig hearts, perfused for 12 hours, in either an H, or supported (S) position, either in nonworking mode (NWM) or working mode (WM). The cardiac function was best preserved in the S position hearts in WM (median 11 hour cardiac index (CI)/1 hour CI%: working mode perfusion in supported position = 94.77% versus nonworking mode perfusion in supported position = 62.80%, working mode perfusion in H position = 36.18%, nonworking mode perfusion in H position = 9.75%; p < 0.001). Delivery of pyruvate bolus significantly improved the function in S groups, however, only partially reversed myocardial dysfunction in the H heart groups. The hearts perfused ex situ in a semianatomical S position and in physiologic WM had better functional preservation and recovery than the H hearts in non-S position. Optimizing the positional support for the ex situ-perfused hearts may improve myocardial preservation during ESHP.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".