Prolonged Preservation of up to 24 Hours at 10 °C Does Not Impact Outcomes after Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of prolonged storage of donor lungs at 10 °C for up to 24 hours on outcome after lung transplantation. BACKGROUND: An increasing body of evidence suggests 10 °C as the optimal storage temperature for donor lungs. A recent study showed that cold ischemic times can be safely expanded to >12 hours when lungs are stored at 10 °C. However, it is currently unknown how long donor lungs can be preserved before they deteriorate in function. METHODS: Patients who received a donor lung stored at 10 °C between November 2020 and June 2023 at the lung transplant programs of Toronto, Vienna, and Madrid were included in this retrospective analysis. After excluding ex-vivo lung perfusion cases, recipients were grouped based on the total preservation times of their donor organs (<12 hours: n = 48; 12-18 hours: n = 109; ≥18 hours: n = 24). Three hundred seventy-two recipients who had received an organ stored on-ice during the study period served as a control group. RESULTS: Length of lung preservation ranged from 2 hours 27 minutes to 29 hours 33 minutes (mean: 14 hours 06 minutes). Despite these prolonged preservation times, early postoperative outcomes were excellent. Median length of mechanical ventilation did not differ among the 3 study groups [<12 hours: 41 hours (interquartile range: 24-109); 12-18 hours: 56 hours (interquartile range: 24-143) and ≥18 hours: 59 hours (interquartile range: 28-108); P = 0.493]. Intensive care unit length of stay [6 days (4-14); 8 days (4-23); 8 days (5-32)] and hospital length of stay [32 days (20-48); 29 days (20-50); 26 days (17-50)] were also similar. Furthermore, the length of donor organ preservation had no impact on patient survival (log-rank P = 0.413). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged static preservation of donor lungs at 10 °C for up to 24 hours is safe and does not impair short-intermediate outcomes after lung 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".