Identification of Lung Transplant Recipients with a Survival Benefit after Fundoplication

Optimizing the prelung transplant candidate

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung transplant outcomes are impacted by multiple modifiable risk factors. Candidate deterioration on the wait list remains problematic. Innovative technology and strategies to identify and impact pretransplant morbidity have improved short- and long-term outcomes. We focus our review on recent advances in pretransplant recipient assessment and optimization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advancements in recipient management have focused on risk factor identification for adverse outcomes and the development of a lung transplant specific frailty assessment. Early surgical correction of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), including the use of partial fundoplication in the setting of esophageal dysmotility, leads to improvements in graft function/longevity. New evidence supports expanding criteria for extracorporeal life support as a bridge to transplant.

SUMMARY

Candidate optimization requires early intervention to limit functional deterioration potentially contributing to adverse outcomes. Frailty can be identified with a transplant specific frailty assessment, and positively impacted with dedicated rehabilitation. Pretransplant frailty is reversible following transplant and should be considered in the context of overall fitness at the time of candidate selection. Invasive support modes including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are appropriate to preserve strength and mobility, with awake, ambulatory ECMO preferred. The deleterious effect of GERD on graft function can be managed with early fundoplication over medical management alone.

A perspective on the clinical relevance of weak or nonacid reflux

BACKGROUND

Advances in ambulatory esophageal reflux monitoring that incorporated impedance electrodes to pH catheters have resulted in better characterization of retrograde bolus flow in the esophagus. With pH-impedance monitoring, in addition to acid reflux episodes identified by pH drops below 4.0, weakly acid reflux (WAR, pH 4-7) and nonacid reflux (NAR, pH >7.0) are also recognized, although both may be included under the umbrella term NAR. However, despite identification of ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring, data on clinical relevance and prognostic value of NAR are limited. The Lyon Consensus, an international expert review that defines conclusive metrics for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), identifies NAR as "supportive" but not conclusive for GERD.

PURPOSE

This review provides perspectives on whether NAR fulfills three criteria for clinical relevance: whether NAR sufficiently explains pathogenesis of symptoms, whether it is associated with meaningful manifestations of GERD, and whether it can predict treatment efficacy.

Utilization of Oil Red O staining for assessing aspiration risk in lung transplant patients: A multidisciplinary prospective study with clinical practice insights

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease with microaspiration has been associated with graft dysfunction in lung transplant patients. Identifying patients with aspiration is clinically important because it enables implementation of appropriate interventions like antireflux therapy. Oil Red O (ORO) staining with determination of the lipid-laden macrophage index (LLMI) has been proposed as a noninvasive surrogate marker in the detection of aspiration. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate clinical utilization of ORO staining in the assessment of aspiration risk.

METHODS

All transbronchial surgical pathology biopsies obtained in lung transplant patients undergoing routine surveillance from August 2020 through November 2021 were included in this study. Clinical team members prospectively ascertained the aspiration risk category (ARC) of each patient both before and after biopsy findings and recorded reasons for change in ARC.

RESULTS

A total of 132 transbronchial biopsies with concurrent LLMI were included in the study. LLMI was low in 51 cases (38.6%), including 21 of the 54 cases (38.9%) where aspiration was suggested based on the transbronchial biopsy findings. In total, 19 cases (14.4%) underwent a change in ARC post-biopsy including 10 that were upgraded and nine cases that were downgraded. Transbronchial biopsy findings were noted as the reason for change in ARC in the majority (15/19; 79%) of cases; only a minority (2/19; 10.5%) were due to the LLMI. Notably, 16 cases (12.1%) had a low LLMI with high-risk post-biopsy ARC and nine cases (6.8%) had a high LLMI with low-risk post-biopsy ARC.

CONCLUSIONS

This study observed that clinical evaluation for aspiration relied more heavily on transbronchial biopsy findings. Although LLMI may retain clinical utility in some scenarios, reevaluation of the clinical value of ORO testing would be prudent.