Combined heart-liver transplantation practices survey in North America: Evaluation and organ listing practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a web-based survey to characterize liver transplant (LT) evaluation and listing practices for patients being evaluated for combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLT), with a specific emphasis on patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), around transplant centers in North America. Very few protocols for liver evaluation and listing in patients undergoing combined heart-liver transplantation are published, and no guidelines currently exist on this topic. A subject of intense debate in the transplant community is the decision of which patients with CHD and liver disease benefit from CHLT compared with heart transplantation. A focus group from the American Society of Transplantation Liver-Intestine Community of Practice Education Subcommittee developed a web-based survey that included questions (1) respondee demographic information; (2) LT evaluation practices in CHLT; (3) liver organ listing practices in CHLT, and (4) 4 clinical vignettes with case-based scenarios in CHLT liver listings among CHD patients who underwent Fontan palliation. The survey was distributed to medical and surgical LT program directors of 47 centers that had completed at least 1 CHLT up to July 2021 in the US and the University of Toronto, Canada. The survey had an excellent 83% response rate (87% for centers that completed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 y). Total 66.7% used transjugular liver biopsy with HVPG measurements, 30% used percutaneous liver biopsy with no consensus on the use of a fibrosis staging system, 95% mandated contrasted cross-sectional imaging, and 65% upper endoscopy. The following isolated findings evaluation mandated CHLT listing: isolated elevated HVPG (61.5%); the presence of portosystemic collaterals on imaging (67.5%); the endoscopic presence of esophageal or gastric varices (75%), and the presence of HCC (80%), whereas the majority of centers did not feel that the presence of isolated splenomegaly (100%), thrombocytopenia (81.6%), endoscopic findings of portal hypertensive gastropathy (66.7%), or highly sensitized patients (84.6%) justified CHLT. In our survey of North American centers that had performed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 years, we observed heterogeneity in practices for both evaluation and listing protocols in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".