Endoscopic Management of Biliary Complications following Liver Transplantation after Donation from Cardiac Death Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a higher incidence of biliary complications following donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation compared with donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation. The endoscopic management of ischemic type biliary strictures in patients who have undergone DCD liver transplants needs to be characterized further. METHODS: A retrospective institutional review of all patients who underwent DCD liver transplant from January 2006 to September 2011 was performed. These patients were compared with all patients who underwent DBD liver transplantation in the same time period. A descriptive analysis of all DCD patients who developed biliary complications and their subsequent endoscopic management was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 36 patients who received DCD liver transplants, 25% developed biliary complications compared with 13% of patients who received DBD liver transplants (P=0.062). All DCD allograft recipients who developed biliary complications became symptomatic within three months of transplantation. Ischemic type biliary strictures in DCD allograft recipients included disseminated biliary strictures in two patients, biliary strictures of the hepatic duct bifurcation in three patients and biliary strictures of the donor common hepatic duct in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend toward increasing incidence of total biliary complications in recipients of DCD liver allografts compared with those receiving DBD livers, and the rate of diffuse ischemic cholangiopathy was significantly higher. Focal ischemic type biliary strictures can be treated effectively in DCD liver transplant recipients with favourable results. Diffuse ischemic type biliary strictures in DCD liver transplant recipients ultimately requires retransplantation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".