Premortem anticoagulation timing and dose in donation after circulatory death: multicentre study of associations with graft function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD), it is common to administer premortem heparin to potential donors. This practice remains controversial because there is limited evidence for it and there is the possibility of inducing hemorrhage. To our knowledge, no previous studies have assessed the effects of heparin timing and dose on graft function. METHODS: We performed a multicentre cohort study of consecutive DCD donors and the recipients of their organs. Anticoagulation administration was considered early if given near the time of withdrawal of life-sustaining measures and late if delayed until the onset of donor hypoxemia (oxygen saturation < 70%) or hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 60 mm Hg or mean blood pressure < 50 mm Hg). The anticoagulation dose was considered high if it was 300 units/kg or greater. RESULTS: = 0.01). Administration was late in 59% and the dose was low in 27%. Among kidney recipients, there were no significant differences in need for dialysis, glomerular filtration rate over the first year after transplantation or graft survival on the basis of whether or not the donor received heparin, the timing of heparin administration or the dose of heparin. Among liver recipients, alkaline phosphatase concentrations over the first year were significantly higher among recipients who received organs from donors to whom lower doses of heparin had been administered. CONCLUSION: Premortem heparin is widely used in DCD cases, but there is variability in timing and dose, which was not associated with kidney outcomes in this study. Donor anticoagulation may have a greater impact in preventing biliary complications following liver 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".