5 ms·

The point is that his heart failed, not some other organ, and while it was functional for a time, the surgeons had stated that it would be functional for longer

The point is that his heart failed, not some other organ, and while it was functional for a time, the surgeons had stated that it would be functional for longer. While you can soften the failure by highlighting the patient's broad systemic issues, this is still a notable failure that will likely put a damper on future similar pig transplants.

feet 4y ago
The human body is a system, I'm not a physiologist so I don't fully understand everything. That being said, if organs which normally supply some sort of supportive function to the heart no longer work, it's definitely possible for the heart to fail first. The heart is a mechanical pump remember, easy for it to fail
rkangel 4y ago
> that will likely put a damper on future similar pig transplants I should hope not. Not everything works first time. Hopefully it gives data such that the next one works for 16 weeks, and the one after that for 3 months, until this is a standard source of transplant organs.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Ah well, if you’ll likely die tomorrow then even 7 weeks is pretty good. Not sure that’s a good trade for the pig though.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    Good question. Maybe not, maybe actually yes. Using animals for transplants gives place for all kind of discussions. But this pig only existed as it was raised for that purpose. Like basically all pigs, which are raised for meat production. In contrast to those, the pig in question was probably well raised in good conditions and fed quality food and no bad pharmaceuticals. And indeed, humans use many animals, a lot of that use involves their deaths. But here it at least isn't for some random food, and a lot of meat just goes waste, but to keep a human alive. That is at least a very good reason.
    - Fargoan 4y ago
      What if there were humans who only existed because they were bred and raised for organ transplant? It wouldn't surprise me if this already exists.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      For the humans. I very much doubt the pig sees it that way (or would see it that way, if they were human). Don’t misunderstand me, I love meat, and while I think that killing pigs (at least someone else killing pigs) is acceptable for that purpose, I would have a harder time justifying killing a whole pig to keep someone alive a little longer. For the same reasons we don’t just raise humans as cattle to use as organ transplant sources. We tell ourselves that it is acceptable with pigs, and while this certainly makes it easier on the humans (and they grow faster), I’m not sure it’s fundamentally different.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Isn't killing a pig for meat technically "killing a whole pig to keep someone alive a little longer" too? I'm a little baffled by your ethical calculus here. Raising pigs for muscle to eat seems substantially less ethical than raising pigs for organs to transplant; you can eat plant-based alternatives, but good luck pumping blood with a soybean.
      - edmcnulty101 4y ago
        I don't understand how killing pigs for meat to eat to survive is different than killing pigs for a heart to implant to survive.
    - flatiron 4y ago
      It’s very easy to sympathize with the pig. But, if a doctor came into the room and said “a pig or your daughter” what would anyone say?
mrjin 4y ago
His heart was failing for some reason(s). I don't see how transplant would ever make those go away, at best it would only buy him some time allowing those reasons to be removed. In some lucky cases, those do get removed automatically but I would expect in most of the cases, they would be left intact and will eventually cause heart to fail again soon. This does not even consider the immune system reactions, taking those into consideration, the chance would be very little.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  If the reason is a faulty heart, replacing the heart makes the reason go away.
maxerickson 4y ago
Why would the failure of one extremely experimental transplant put a damper on subsequent extremely experimental transplants? Is the idea that they should have it all worked out before they even try it?
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Ideally, yes? I mean it would be strictly better. I’m not saying they shouldn’t try even though they don’t.
  - bartread 4y ago
    That's why it's called an experimental treatment, and is why you only try it out on people who will certainly die if only treated in more conventional ways. You can't possibly have everything worked out before you try an experimental treatment by it's very definition. It's inherently risky, but it's also a very important way in which medical science is advanced.
    - amelius 4y ago
      Did they try it on other primates first?
      - shagie 4y ago
        Yes. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pig-heart-monkey-51-days-survival-transplant-a7420446.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pig-heart-monkey-... https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35969109 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35969109 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboons-survive-for-half-a-year-after-heart-transplants-from-pigs/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboons-survive-f...
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- adinb 4y ago
  It’s because they don’t know why the heart muscles died.
picsao 4y ago
arbitrage 4y ago
You're being wildly pessimistic. The first human heart transplant was successful for a little less than three weeks, until the patient died of systemic organ failure. That procedure is historically regarded as wildly successful. A team of medical scientists did something even more amazing. This procedure was a success. The next one will be better.
- ambyra 4y ago
  I think so too. I wonder if they are considering editing more genes to make the heart more human. I bet 100 years from now, there will genetically modified pigs running around with human hearts, and other modifications to support that heart.
Retric 4y ago
The first human to human heart transplant failed even sooner and was considered wildly successful. Edit: Even though the immunosuppressants ended up killing him. 7 weeks doesn’t sound like long, but a great many things needed to work for the patient to survive even 1 week.
- eterm 4y ago
  I just looked to fact check this, and all the sources I can find says the patient died of pneumonia, not heart failure and that the heart didn't fail and continued to work up until death. So no, the first transplant didn't "fail even sooner" because it wasn't the heart that failed.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Very different contexts. Before human heart transplantation was available, you could pick someone with severe heart disease but otherwise in good condition as a test candidate. It was entirely ethical; they'd die without the transplant anyways. Now that we have viable human heart transplantation, you have to pick sicker patients as candidates - people who wouldn't survive even if they got a human heart transplant. Giving someone who'd survive with a human heart an experimental pig heart isn't ethical. It makes sense that the failure model would be different.
    - mort96 4y ago
      Is there no shortage of human hearts to transplant? Don't you have people who would live with a human heart transplant, but where the risk of waiting a short period of time for a pig heart transplant is about the same as the risk of waiting a long period of time for a human heart transplant? I mean if we do have enough human hearts to transplant into anyone who needs it I suppose that's a good thing, but all I hear about transplants is how long the wait times usually are for human organs.
      - Retric 4y ago
        The shortage means the people likely to survive longest after transplant get preferential treatment. Which means if someone has stage 4 cancer etc they aren’t on the list.

feet 4y ago

The human body is a system, I'm not a physiologist so I don't fully understand everything. That being said, if organs which normally supply some sort of supportive function to the heart no longer work, it's definitely possible for the heart to fail first. The heart is a mechanical pump remember, easy for it to fail

rkangel 4y ago

> that will likely put a damper on future similar pig transplants I should hope not. Not everything works first time. Hopefully it gives data such that the next one works for 16 weeks, and the one after that for 3 months, until this is a standard source of transplant organs.

Aeolun 4y ago
Ah well, if you’ll likely die tomorrow then even 7 weeks is pretty good. Not sure that’s a good trade for the pig though.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  Good question. Maybe not, maybe actually yes. Using animals for transplants gives place for all kind of discussions. But this pig only existed as it was raised for that purpose. Like basically all pigs, which are raised for meat production. In contrast to those, the pig in question was probably well raised in good conditions and fed quality food and no bad pharmaceuticals. And indeed, humans use many animals, a lot of that use involves their deaths. But here it at least isn't for some random food, and a lot of meat just goes waste, but to keep a human alive. That is at least a very good reason.
  - Fargoan 4y ago
    What if there were humans who only existed because they were bred and raised for organ transplant? It wouldn't surprise me if this already exists.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    For the humans. I very much doubt the pig sees it that way (or would see it that way, if they were human). Don’t misunderstand me, I love meat, and while I think that killing pigs (at least someone else killing pigs) is acceptable for that purpose, I would have a harder time justifying killing a whole pig to keep someone alive a little longer. For the same reasons we don’t just raise humans as cattle to use as organ transplant sources. We tell ourselves that it is acceptable with pigs, and while this certainly makes it easier on the humans (and they grow faster), I’m not sure it’s fundamentally different.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Isn't killing a pig for meat technically "killing a whole pig to keep someone alive a little longer" too? I'm a little baffled by your ethical calculus here. Raising pigs for muscle to eat seems substantially less ethical than raising pigs for organs to transplant; you can eat plant-based alternatives, but good luck pumping blood with a soybean.
    - edmcnulty101 4y ago
      I don't understand how killing pigs for meat to eat to survive is different than killing pigs for a heart to implant to survive.
  - flatiron 4y ago
    It’s very easy to sympathize with the pig. But, if a doctor came into the room and said “a pig or your daughter” what would anyone say?

mrjin 4y ago

His heart was failing for some reason(s). I don't see how transplant would ever make those go away, at best it would only buy him some time allowing those reasons to be removed. In some lucky cases, those do get removed automatically but I would expect in most of the cases, they would be left intact and will eventually cause heart to fail again soon. This does not even consider the immune system reactions, taking those into consideration, the chance would be very little.

BurningFrog 4y ago
If the reason is a faulty heart, replacing the heart makes the reason go away.

maxerickson 4y ago

Why would the failure of one extremely experimental transplant put a damper on subsequent extremely experimental transplants? Is the idea that they should have it all worked out before they even try it?

Aeolun 4y ago
Ideally, yes? I mean it would be strictly better. I’m not saying they shouldn’t try even though they don’t.
- bartread 4y ago
  That's why it's called an experimental treatment, and is why you only try it out on people who will certainly die if only treated in more conventional ways. You can't possibly have everything worked out before you try an experimental treatment by it's very definition. It's inherently risky, but it's also a very important way in which medical science is advanced.
  - amelius 4y ago
    Did they try it on other primates first?
    - shagie 4y ago
      Yes. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pig-heart-monkey-51-days-survival-transplant-a7420446.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pig-heart-monkey-... https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35969109 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35969109 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboons-survive-for-half-a-year-after-heart-transplants-from-pigs/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboons-survive-f...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
adinb 4y ago
It’s because they don’t know why the heart muscles died.

picsao 4y ago

arbitrage 4y ago

You're being wildly pessimistic. The first human heart transplant was successful for a little less than three weeks, until the patient died of systemic organ failure. That procedure is historically regarded as wildly successful. A team of medical scientists did something even more amazing. This procedure was a success. The next one will be better.

ambyra 4y ago
I think so too. I wonder if they are considering editing more genes to make the heart more human. I bet 100 years from now, there will genetically modified pigs running around with human hearts, and other modifications to support that heart.

Retric 4y ago

The first human to human heart transplant failed even sooner and was considered wildly successful. Edit: Even though the immunosuppressants ended up killing him. 7 weeks doesn’t sound like long, but a great many things needed to work for the patient to survive even 1 week.

eterm 4y ago
I just looked to fact check this, and all the sources I can find says the patient died of pneumonia, not heart failure and that the heart didn't fail and continued to work up until death. So no, the first transplant didn't "fail even sooner" because it wasn't the heart that failed.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Very different contexts. Before human heart transplantation was available, you could pick someone with severe heart disease but otherwise in good condition as a test candidate. It was entirely ethical; they'd die without the transplant anyways. Now that we have viable human heart transplantation, you have to pick sicker patients as candidates - people who wouldn't survive even if they got a human heart transplant. Giving someone who'd survive with a human heart an experimental pig heart isn't ethical. It makes sense that the failure model would be different.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Is there no shortage of human hearts to transplant? Don't you have people who would live with a human heart transplant, but where the risk of waiting a short period of time for a pig heart transplant is about the same as the risk of waiting a long period of time for a human heart transplant? I mean if we do have enough human hearts to transplant into anyone who needs it I suppose that's a good thing, but all I hear about transplants is how long the wait times usually are for human organs.
    - Retric 4y ago
      The shortage means the people likely to survive longest after transplant get preferential treatment. Which means if someone has stage 4 cancer etc they aren’t on the list.