Five-year experience using the Lung Allocation Score: the Munich Lung Transplant Group

Double lung transplantation is better than single lung transplantation for end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation is one of the most common treatment options for patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, the choice between single and double lung transplantation for these patients remains a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a systematic search of medical databases for studies on single lung transplantation, double lung transplantation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

METHODS

The rate ratio and hazard ratio of survival were analyzed. The meta-analysis included 15 case-control and retrospective registry studies.

RESULTS

The rate ratios of the 3-year survival (0.937 and P = 0.041) and 5-year survival (0.775 and P = 0.000) were lower for single lung transplantation than for double lung transplantation. However, the hazard ratio did not differ significantly between the two.

CONCLUSIONS

Double lung transplantation was found to provide better benefits than single lung transplantation in terms of the long-term survival in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Early experience of a new national lung allocation scheme in the UK based on clinical urgency

INTRODUCTION

A new UK Lung Allocation Scheme (UKLAS) was introduced in 2017, replacing the previous geographic allocation system. Patients are prioritised according to predefined clinical criteria into a three-tier system: the super-urgent lung allocation scheme (SULAS), the urgent lung allocation scheme (ULAS) and the non-urgent lung allocation scheme (NULAS). This study assessed the early impact of this scheme on waiting-list and post-transplant outcomes.

METHODS

A cohort study of adult lung transplant registrations between March 2015 and November 2016 (era-1) and between May 2017 and January 2019 (era-2). Outcomes from registration were compared between eras and stratified by urgency tier and diagnostic group.

RESULTS

During era-1, 461 patients were registered. In era-2, 471 patients were registered (19 (4.0%) SULAS, 82 (17.4%) ULAS and 370 (78.6%) NULAS). SULAS patients were younger (median age 35 vs 50 and 55 for urgent and non-urgent, respectively, p=0.0015) and predominantly suffered from cystic fibrosis (53%) or pulmonary fibrosis (37%). Between eras 1 and 2, the odds of transplantation within 6 months of registration were increased (OR=1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.85, p=0.0142) despite only a 5% increase in transplant activity. Median time-to-transplantation during era-1 was 427 days compared with waiting times in era-2 of 8 days for SULAS, 15 days for ULAS and 585 days for NULAS patients. Waiting-list mortality (15% era-1 vs 13% era-2; p=0.5441) and post-transplant survival at 1 year (81.3% era-1 vs 83.3% era-2; p=0.6065) were similar between eras.

CONCLUSION

The UKLAS scheme prioritises the critically ill and improves transplantation odds. The true impact on waiting-list mortality and post-transplant survival requires further follow-up.

Conditional Survival in Lung Transplantation: An Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Database Analysis

Lung transplantation survival estimates are traditionally reported as fixed 1-, 5-, and 10-year mortality rates. Alternatively, this study aims to demonstrate how conditional survival models can provide useful prognostic information tailored to the time a recipient has already survived from the date of transplantation. Recipient data was obtained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Data from 24,820 adult recipients over age 18 who received a lung transplant between 2002 and 2017 were included in the study. Five-year observed conditional survival estimates were calculated by recipient age, sex, race, transplant indication, transplant type ( i.e. , single or double), and renal function at the time of transplantation. Significant variability exists in conditional survival following lung transplantation. Each specific recipient characteristic significantly impacted conditional survival during at least one time point in the first 5 years. Younger age and double lung transplantation were the two most positive predictors of improved conditional survival consistently throughout the 5-year study period. Conditional survival in lung transplantation recipients changes over time and across recipient characteristics. Hazards of mortality are not fixed and need to be dynamically evaluated as a function of time. Conditional survival calculations can provide more accurate prognostic predictions than unconditional survival estimates.

Advances in lung transplantation for interstitial lung diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung transplantation (LTx) is increasingly used as ultimate treatment modality in end-stage interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). This review aims to give an overview of the latest evolutions in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last two years, important new findings regarding LTx outcomes in specific ILD entities have been reported. More data are available on optimization of pre-LTx management of ILD patients especially with regard to pretransplant antifibrotic treatment.

SUMMARY

LTx is the only treatment option with curative intent for ILDs and is increasingly used for this indication. Several studies have now reported adequate outcomes in different ILD entities, although outcome is shown to be affected by underlying telomeropathies. As new studies could not replicate inferior survival with single compared with double LTx, both options remain acceptable. ILD specialists can beneficially impact on post-LTx outcome by optimizing pre-LTx management: corticosteroids should be avoided, antifibrotics should be initiated whenever possible and BMI and nutritional status optimized, rehabilitation and depression-screening strategies should be implemented in all LTx candidates, as these interventions may all improve postlung transplant survival.

Evolution of Recipient Characteristics Over 3 Decades and Impact on Survival After Lung Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation (LTx) is a definitive treatment for end-stage lung disease. Herein, we reviewed our center experience over three decades to examine the evolution of recipient characteristics and contemporary predictors of survival for LTx.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of LTx procedures performed at our institution from 1/1990 to 1/2019 (n=1819). The cohort is divided into three eras; I: 1990-1998 (n=152), II: 1999-2008 (n=521), III: 2009-2018 (n=1146). Uni- and multivariate analyses of survival in era III were performed.

RESULTS

Pulmonary fibrosis has become the leading indication for LTx (13% in Era I, 57% in Era III). Median recipient age increased (Era I: 46 years - Era III: 61 years) as well as intraoperative mechanical circulatory support (Era I: 0% - Era III: 6%). Higher lung allocation score (LAS) was associated with primary graft dysfunction (PGD) (p<0.0001), postoperative ECMO (p<0.0001), and in-hospital mortality (p=0.002). In Era III, hypoalbuminemia, thrombocytopenia, and high PGD grade were multivariate predictors of early mortality. The 5-year survival in Era II (55%) and III (55%) were superior to Era I (40%, p<0.001). Risk factors for late mortality in era III included recipient age, chronic allograft dysfunction, renal dysfunction, high MELD score, and single LTx.

CONCLUSIONS

In this longitudinal single-center study, recipient characteristics have evolved to include sicker patients with greater complexity of procedures and risk for postoperative complications but without significant impact on hospital mortality or long-term survival. With advancing surgical techniques and perioperative management, there is room for further progress in the field.Supplemental Visual Abstract; http://links.lww.com/TP/C191.

Treatment of severe stable COPD: the multidimensional approach of treatable traits

Now that additional treatment options for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have emerged in recent years, patients with severe COPD should not be left in the rather hopeless situation of “there is nothing to improve” any more. Inertia or fatalism is a disservice to our patients. Ranging from advanced care planning to quite intense and demanding therapies such as multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation, (endoscopic) lung volume reduction, chronic noninvasive ventilation and lung transplantation, caregivers should try to provide a personalised treatment for every severe COPD patient. In this review, we aim to describe the multidimensional approach to these patients at our centre along the lines of treatable traits leading to specific additional treatment modalities on top of standard care.

Severe COPD is not hopeless; in light of treatment options such as pulmonary rehabilitation, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, chronic noninvasive ventilation and lung transplantation, every patient deserves a personalised assessment of treatable traitshttps://bit.ly/2TO7jxB

Timing it right: the challenge of recipient selection for lung transplantation

Selection criteria for the referral and potential listing of patients for lung transplantation (LTx) have changed considerably over the last three decades but one key maxim prevails, the ultimate focus is to increase longevity and quality of life by careful utilization of a rare and precious resource, the donor organs. In this article, we review how the changes have developed and the outcomes of those changes, highlighting the impact of the lung allocation score (LAS) system. Major diseases, including interstitial lung disease (ILD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary hypertension are considered in detail as well as the concept of retransplantation where appropriate. Results from bridging to LTx using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are discussed and other potential contraindications evaluated such as advanced age, frailty and resistant infections. Given the multiplicity of risk factors it is a credit to those working in the field that such excellent and improving results are obtained with an ongoing dedication to achieving best practice.

The lung allocation score could evaluate allocation systems in countries that do not use the score

BACKGROUND

Evaluating allocation system effects on lung transplantation and determining systemic flaws is difficult. The purpose of this study was to assess the Korean urgency-based lung allocation system using the lung allocation score.

METHODS

We reviewed transplantation patients retrospectively. Candidates were classified into groups based on urgency. Status 0 designated hospitalized patients requiring ventilator and/or extracorporeal life support. The lung allocation score was calculated based on the recipient's condition at transplantation.

RESULTS

One-hundred-twenty-three Status 0, 1, and 2/3 patients (40, 71, and 12, respectively) were enrolled. The median waiting time was 68 days. Nineteen Status 0 patients who received lung transplants deteriorated from non-Status 0 (median, 64 days). The lung allocation score showed a bimodal distribution (peaks around 45 and 90, corresponding with non-Status 0 and Status 0, respectively). Status 0 and the lung allocation score were independent risk factors for poor survival after adjustment for confounders (Status 0, hazard ratio, 2.788, p = 0.001; lung allocation score, hazard ratio, 1.025, p < 0.001). The lung allocation score cut-off for survival was 44. On dividing the non-Status 0 patients into 2 groups using the cut-off values and regrouping into Status 0, non-Status 0 with high lung allocation score (> 44), and non-Status 0 with low lung allocation score (< 44), we observed that non-Status 0 with high lung allocation score patients had better survival than Status 0 patients (p = 0.020) and poorer survival than non-Status 0 with low lung allocation score patients (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

The LAS demonstrated the characteristics of LTx recipients in Korea and the Korean allocation system needs to be revised to reduce the number of patients receiving LTx in Status 0. The LAS system could be used as a tool to evaluate lung allocation systems in countries that do not use the LAS system.

Combined diffusing capacity for nitric oxide and carbon monoxide as predictor of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome following lung transplantation

BACKGROUND

There is a need for non-invasive parameters that are sensitive to the development of the bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) in lung transplantation (LTx) patients. We studied whether the pulmonary diffusing capacity for inhaled nitric oxide is capable of detecting BOS stages.

METHODS

Sixty-one LTx patients were included into this cross-sectional study (19/29/7/3/3 in BOS stages 0/0-p/1/2/3). For analysis stages 0/0-p versus 1/2/3 ("BOS binary-early"), and stages 0/0-p/1 versus 2/3 ("BOS binary-late") were summarized. Measurements of the combined diffusing capacity for nitric oxide (DLNO) and carbon monoxide (DLCO) were compared with spirometry and bodyplethysmography, and their relative importance was evaluated by discriminant analysis.

RESULTS

Regarding the recognition of "BOS binary-early", among spirometric parameters forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was best, among bodyplethysmographic parameters airway resistance, and among diffusing parameters DLNO. Regarding "BOS binary-late", DLNO was inferior to bodyplethysmographic parameters.

CONCLUSION

Although the study comprised only measurements at a single time point and no follow-up, DLNO outperformed FEV1, the time course of which is used in detecting BOS. Together with its pathophysiological plausibility, this result suggests that the measurement of DLNO, possibly over time, could be an easily applicable tool for the monitoring of LTx patients and should be evaluated in larger studies.