Pig Heart Preservation with Antegrade Intracellular Crystalloid versus Antegrade/Retrograde Miniplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) solution and Braile miniplegia are commercially available and used with high success. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of both strategies in an animal model. Twelve pigs were divided into control, HTK, or Braile groups using a model of controlled global cardiac ischemia/reperfusion under cardiopulmonary bypass with 1 hour heart ischemia followed by 2 hour reperfusion. No significant differences were found over time or between groups for heart rate, arrhythmia, number of defibrillations required, blood gases, myocardial lactate production, myocardial oxygen consumption, nor coronary flow index. The Braile strategy was associated with a lower 120 minute postreperfusion coronary vascular resistance with higher water content, leukocyte infiltration, and oxidative damage compared with controls. Drainage of HTK solution to the venous return was followed by higher potassium and lower sodium blood concentrations. One-hour heart preservation with HTK or Braile systems followed by 2 hour reperfusion both allow for acceptable preservation of the healthy pig myocardium. Maneuvers such as leukocyte filtration or hemofiltration may further improve these conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".