MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Donation after circulatory death in a European ultraperipheral and multi-insular region

2025· article· en· W7127616111 on OpenAlexaff
M Groba Marco, M Fernandez De Sanmamed Giron, M Casares Ruiz, V Pena Morant, J L Romero Lujan, J Gonzalez Martin, F Portela Torron, J Deniz Rosario, C Acosta Calero, B Rojas Escriva, J Grillo Perez, K Belleyo Belkasem, N Marrero Negrin, E Caballero Dorta, A Santana Quintana

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanarie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonationEconomic shortageRetrospective cohort studyCirculatory systemObservational studyPopulationRenal replacement therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The creation of a new heart transplant (HT) program in a ultraperipheral region may be limited by a small population and a shortage of cardiac donors. In recent years, controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) has significantly increased transplant activity. This study aims to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of DCD using thoraco-abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TANRP) and static cold storage compared to traditional donation after brain death (DBD) in the XXX HT program. Method We performed a single-center, retrospective observational study of all HT performed between December 2019 and December 2024 in the XXX hospital. Data were obtained from medical records and the XXX HT Registry. Results The first DCD transplant was performed in 2021, and in subsequent years 4 ,7 and 8 HT were procured using this technique (Figure 1A). During the study period, 98 HT were performed and 20% were from DCD. These donors had a similar age compared to DBD donors (49.8 vs. 46.4 years, p = 0.321), were mostly male (80%), and one patient had left ventricular dysfunction during the intraoperative DCD process. Mean waitlist time was shorter in the DCD group (27 vs 66 days, p = 0.03). There were no differences in primary graft dysfunction (10% in the DCD group and 9% in DBD, p = 1) or renal replacement therapy (50% vs 26%, p = 0.055). Median total hospital stay was longer in the DCD group (46 vs 36 days, p = 0.021). In the DCD group, at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months the survival rate was 96%, 95%, 93% and 87%, respectively, with no significant differences compared to the DBD group (Figure 1B). Conclusions In the first HT program in a European ultraperipheral and multi-insular region, DCD is performed safely and effectively without compromising outcomes, and with a significant increase in donor pool. This HT program employed older donors, than those reported in previous studies, with excellent short-term outcomes. Future studies are warranted.A: Number of DCD and DBD. B: Survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→