Single-center experience in urgent lung transplantation program in a country with a shortage of donors: Does the end justify the means?

Outcomes of urgent lung transplantation in critically ill patients versus standard lung transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether survival differs between urgent lung transplantation (ULTx) and standard lung transplantation (LTx) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate survival and other post-transplant outcomes between ULTx and standard LTx.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched up to July 31, 2024 for relevant studies. A meta-analysis of baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes was then performed, with subgroup analyses by study designs and indications. Overall survival (OS) was set as the primary outcome in this study. Risk ratio (RR), mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were assessed using fixed-effects or random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 934 ULTx and 2980 standard LTx patients were included. ULTx group exhibited lower donor PaO2/FiO2 (P = 0.03) and higher pre-operative life support use (P < 0.001) than standard LTx group. No statistical difference in waiting list mortality was found between groups (28.4 % vs. 12.6 %; P = 0.54). ULTx was associated with significantly lower 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS than standard LTx (70.2 % vs. 80.0 %, 57.7 % vs. 66.7 %, 46.5 % vs. 56.2 %; all P < 0.001). At each time point, about 10 % OS rate differences were found consistently. In most subgroups, ULTx was associated with worse outcomes, but no difference in OS was observed in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ULTx reduces waiting list mortality in critical patients, but is associated with worse OS than standard LTx. ULTx may limit short-term survival rather than long-term survival compared with standard LTx.

Pulmonary rehabilitation protocols in urgent lung transplantation patients

BACKGROUND

Prolonged invasive respiratory support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients requiring urgent lung transplantation (ULTx) present significant challenges to clinical practice due to severe underlying diseases and complex conditions. The aim of the study was to report the clinical outcomes of patients who received ULTx and followed the perioperative rehabilitation protocol implemented in a lung transplant center.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted in ULTx patients who required preoperative invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and ECMO between January 2018 and January 2023. Data were retrieved from electronic medical records at our lung transplant center.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (mean age 57.43±10.97 years; 12 males, 2 females) underwent ULTx with bridging ECMO and IMV. The mean body mass index was 23.94±3.33 kg/m², and the mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 21.50±3.96. The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) scores were ≥3. ULTx was performed after an 8.5-day waiting period (interquartile interval [IQR] 5.0-26.5 d). Following the surgeries, the average lengths of ECMO and IMV were 1.0 (IQR 1.0-2.0) d and 5.0 (IQR 3.0-7.3) d, respectively. The total length of hospital stay was 60.1±30.8 d, with an average intensive care unit stay of 38.3±22.9 d and post-operative hospitalization stay of 45.8±26.1 d. Two patients died within 30 d after ULTx, with a 30-day survival rate of 85.71%.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving ULTx showed an acceptable short-term survival rate, validating the practicality and safety of the treatment protocols implemented in our center.

Lobar size reduction in lung transplantation: A propensity score study

OBJECTIVE

For small-sized recipients of lung transplantation, the time span for organ reception from standard donors is generally longer than for normal-sized patients. Despite its underuse, lobar reduction may be a concrete option for these patients. This study aims to assess early and long-term outcomes associated with lobar reduction in lung transplantation.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on 608 consecutive lung transplantations at 2 centers between January 2005 and August 2019 (559 standard lung transplantations [standard transplantation] and 49 with lobar reduction [lung transplantation group]). A propensity-score weighting approach was used to account for potential confounding related to patients' nonrandom allocation to the 2 intervention groups. The effects of the intervention on postoperative outcomes were assessed with a weighted regression approach.

RESULTS

The propensity score was estimated on 571 patients (522 in standard transplantation group and 49 in lung transplantation group). In terms of early outcomes, the lung transplantation group showed a higher percentage of severe primary graft dysfunction at 0 hours and reported longer intensive care unit stay than the standard transplantation group. No other differences in terms of morbidity, mortality, mechanical ventilation time, hospital stay, and anastomotic complications were observed. Although the lung transplantation group showed worse long-term pulmonary function, the 2 populations had comparable survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of lobar reduction showed early and long-term results comparable to those after standard lung transplantation. Although a higher rate of early severe primary graft dysfunction and slightly reduced respiratory function were detected in the lobar group, these did not affect patients' morbidity and survival.

The Surplus Transplant Lung Allocation System in Italy: An Evaluation of the Allocation Process via Stochastic Modeling

Lung transplantation is a specialized procedure used to treat chronic end-stage respiratory diseases. Due to the scarcity of lung donors, constructing fair and equitable lung transplant allocation methods is an issue that has been addressed with different strategies worldwide. This work aims to describe how Italy's "national protocol for the management of surplus organs in all transplant programs" functions through an online app to allocate lung transplants. We have developed two probability models to describe the allocation process among the various transplant centers. An online app was then created. The first model considers conditional probabilities based on a protocol flowchart to compute the probability for each area and transplant center to receive each n-th organ in the period considered. The second probability model is based on the generalization of the binomial distribution to correlated binary variables, which is based on Bahadur's representation, to compute the cumulative probability for each transplant center to receive at least nth organs. Our results show that the impact of the allocation of a surplus organ depends mostly on the region where the organ was donated. The discrepancies shown by our model may be explained by a discrepancy between the northern and southern regions in relation to the number of organs donated.

Anesthetic management in lung transplantation: Our single-center experience

Background

In this study, we aimed to discuss our anesthesia management strategies, experiences, and outcomes in patients undergoing lung transplantation.

Methods

Between December 2016 and December 2018, a total of 53 patients (43 males, 10 females; mean age: 46.1±13 years; range, 14 to 64 years) undergoing lung transplantation in our center were included. The anesthesia technique, patients" characteristics, and perioperative clinical and follow-up data were recorded. The stage of lung disease was assessed using the New York Heart Association functional classification.

Results

Two patients underwent single lung transplantation, while 51 patients underwent double lung transplantation. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis was the most common indication in 41.5% of the patients. All patients had end-stage lung disease (Class IV) and 79% were oxygen-dependent. The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was given to 32 patients.

Conclusion

The anesthetic management of lung transplantation is challenging, either due to the deterioration of the recipient"s physical performance and the complexity of the surgical techniques used. In general, a kind of mechanical support may be needed and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is the first choice in the majority of patients. A close communication should be maintained between the surgeons, perfusion technicians, and anesthesiologists to ensure an optimal multidisciplinary approach and to achieve successful outcomes.

Urgently listed lung transplant patients have outcomes similar to those of electively listed patients

OBJECTIVES

To (1) determine outcomes after urgent listing compared with elective listing for lung transplant and (2) compare in-hospital morbidity and mortality, survival, and allograft function in these 2 groups.

METHODS

From January 2006 to September 2017, 201 patients were urgently and 1423 electively listed. Among urgently listed patients, 130 subsequently underwent primary lung transplant as did 995 electively listed patients. Competing-risks analysis for death and transplant after listing and weighted balancing score matching (76 pairs) were used to compare in-hospital morbidity and survival. Mixed-effect longitudinal modeling was used to compare allograft function to 8 years post-transplant.

RESULTS

At 1 month, mortality was 26% in urgently listed patients, and 58% were transplanted. Risk factors for death included older age, higher bilirubin, and transfer from an outside hospital. At transplantation, urgently listed transplant patients were younger (53 ± 13 vs 55 ± 12 years), had more ventilator and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (32/25% vs 20/2.0%), more restrictive lung disease (95/73% vs 509/51%), and a higher lung allocation score (82 ± 13 vs 47 ± 17). In-hospital morbidity and mortality, time-related survival, and longitudinal allograft function were similar between matched groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent listing more often than not leads to transplantation. Although urgently listed patients are sicker overall, after transplant their perioperative morbidity and mortality, overall survival, and allograft function are similar to those of electively listed patients. Appropriate patient selection and aggressive supportive care allow urgently listed lung transplant patients to achieve these similar post-transplant outcomes.

Urgent lung transplantation in acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia: a sliding door or a new perspective?

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation is nowadays the standard therapy for certain well-defined chronic end-stage lung diseases, even in patients on mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal life support. While these latter techniques have been used worldwide as bridging options to lung transplantation for listed patients, they are not commonly used in previously healthy patients developing acute not-reversible lung failure.

METHODS

We will discuss two patients without any relevant medical history developing acute lung failure evolving to irreversible acute fibrinous and organising pneumonia (AFOP), thus listed for urgent lung transplantation.

RESULTS

The patients recovered well, and both are still alive.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of clear guidelines, our approach showed, in these patients, the possible benefits of lung transplantation regarding survival in AFOP.

Outcomes and risk factors identification in urgent lung transplantation: a multicentric study

BACKGROUND

In rapidly lung deteriorating patients, urgent lung transplantation (ULT) seems the only definitive therapy. Few publications on this topic report conflicting results, putting a word of caution about ULT programs.

METHODS

A national ULT program was introduced in 2010: patients on mechanical support may be transplanted with the first available graft. We reviewed the experience of three national center, focusing on post-operative outcomes after ULT.

RESULTS

Ten patients (17.5%) died awaiting transplantation, while 47 underwent LT with a median urgent waiting list time of 6 days. Pre-operatively, 4.3% of patients were supported only by mechanical ventilation (MV), 55.3% by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and the remaining 40.4% by both. The main indication was cystic fibrosis (64%). Median recipient lung allocation score was 72. In-hospital mortality was 19%. MV and ECMO median duration of 7 and 3 days, respectively while intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay were 20 and 46 days, respectively. At long-term, 1- and 3-year survival rate were 74% and 70%, respectively. Highly impact risk factors for in-hospital mortality were both presence and duration of preoperative veno-arterial ECMO and pre-transplant C-reactive protein level.

CONCLUSIONS

ULT program allows transplantation in a significant percentage of patients with acceptable results. Pre-operative recipient selection is mandatory to improve clinical outcomes.

Lung Allocation Score System: First Italian Experience

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation is an established therapeutic option for patients with end-stage pulmonary disease. In May 2005, the lung allocation score (LAS) was introduced in the United States to maximize the benefit to the recipient population and reduce waiting list mortality. The LAS has been applied in a region of Italy since March 2016 on a provisional basis. The aims of the study were describing waiting list characteristics and short-term outcomes after lung transplantation before and after LAS introduction.

METHODS

All the patients who received transplants between January 1, 2011, and March 15, 2017, were included in our retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 cohorts (historical cohort and post-LAS cohort) and a comparison among the main perioperative data was performed.

RESULTS

The historical cohort consisted of 415 patients on the waiting list with 91 deaths and 199 lung transplants; the post-LAS cohort consisted of 134 patients with 10 deaths on the waiting list and 51 transplants. Median waiting time and mortality on the list decreased from 223 to 106 days (P = .03) and from 11.2% to 7.5% (P > .05), respectively. The transplantation rate increased from 25% to 38% (P = .001) and the probability to receive a transplant in the first year in the post-LAS era increased significantly (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the introduction of the LAS system in our region are encouraging and have not shown any adverse short-term effects. The regional coordination decided to prolong the experimental application of LAS in order to accumulate more data and to evaluate medium-term outcomes.