The evaluation of constant coronary artery flow versus constant coronary perfusion pressure during normothermic ex situ heart perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that hearts that are perfused under ex-situ conditions lose normal coronary vasomotor tone and experience contractile failure over a few hours. We aimed to evaluate the effect of different coronary perfusion strategies during ex situ heart perfusion on cardiac function and coronary vascular tone. METHODS: Porcine hearts (n = 6 each group) were perfused in working mode for 6 hours with either constant aortic diastolic pressure (40 mmHg) or constant coronary flow rate (500 mL/min). Functional and metabolic parameters, cytokine profiles, cardiac and vascular injury, coronary artery function and oxidative stress were compared between groups. RESULTS: , p = 0.016; edema formation: 7.92% vs 19.80%, p < 0.0001). Pro-inflammatory cytokines, platelet activation as well as endothelial activation were lower in the flow control group. Similarly, less cardiac and endothelial injury was observed in the constant coronary flow group. Evaluation of coronary artery function showed there was loss of coronary autoregulation in both groups. Oxidative stress was induced in the coronary arteries and was relatively lower in the flow control group. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of controlled coronary flow during ex situ heart perfusion provides superior functional preservation and less edema formation, together with less myocardial damage, leukocyte, platelet, endothelial activation, and oxidative stress. There was loss of coronary autoregulation and decrease of coronary vascular resistance during ESHP irrespective of coronary flow control strategy. Inflammation and oxidative stress state in the coronary vasculature may play a role.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".