Program of Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Death as Potential Solution to the Shortage of Organs: A Canadian Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Worldwide, the number of patients waiting for organ transplantation exceeds the number of organs available. Program for uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) implemented in Europe has resulted in a 10-15% expansion of the donor pool. We aimed to describe the number of patients eligible for an uDCD program in a regional tertiary care center. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a Canadian tertiary academic center located in a rural area including all adults who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 2016 and died in the emergency department (ED) or during their hospitalization. The primary outcome was the number of patients eligible for uDCD defined as aged between 18 and 60 years old whose collapse was witnessed and where the time between cardiac arrest to cardiopulmonary resuscitation and ED arrival was, respectively, less than 30 and 120 minutes. As a secondary outcome, we determined the number of patients eligible for controlled donation after circulatory death. Results: Of the 130 patients included, 84 did not return to spontaneous circulation. We identified 15 potential uDCD candidates, with a mean age of 46.6 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 41.3 to 52) years. Twelve had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a mean time between collapse and arrival to the ED of 43.2 (29.8 to 56.6) minutes. Among the 46 patients who died after a return of spontaneous circulation, 10 (21.7%) were eligible for organ donation after circulatory death. Conclusion: Implementing an uDCD program in a tertiary hospital covering a rural area could increase the number of donors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".