Hepatitis B Virus Donor Positive to Recipient Negative (D+/R−) Heart and Lung Transplantation: Analysis From the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In nonendemic areas, transplantation from donors with hepatitis B virus (HBV) to recipients without HBV (D+/R-) has been proposed to expand the donor pool; however, data are limited. We aimed to evaluate the epidemiology of HBV in thoracic organ donors, assess HBV-related thoracic organ nonuse, and determine the impact of HBV D+/R- in recipient outcomes. METHODS: Adult first-time heart and lung transplant recipients with negative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and HBV nucleic acid testing (NAT) were identified through the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network between January 2004 and December 2022. Multivariable Cox regression models were built to assess the relationship of donor HBV status with death and graft failure. RESULTS: Our final cohort included 64,514 thoracic organ transplant recipients, 53 HBV D+/R- (0.1%) versus 64,461 (99.9%) HBV D-/R-, including 34,547 (53.5%) heart and 29,967 lung (46.5%) transplants. Donors with positive HBsAg or HBV NAT tests represented 0.31% of the donor pool. There were no reported cases of thoracic organ nonuse due to hepatitis, nor were there differences in the rates of HBV-NAT or HBsAg positivity in used versus nonused thoracic organs. In multivariable modeling, HBV D+/R- was not associated with increased hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.80 [95% CI, 0.30-2.13], p = 0.652) or graft failure (aHR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.27-1.93], p = 0.522) at 1-year. CONCLUSIONS: HBV D+/R- thoracic organ transplantation does not appear to have a deleterious impact on recipient or graft survival. However, more data are needed to determine the long-term risk of donor-derived HBV infection and define the optimal management strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".