Dataset Information

Comparison of donor scores in bilateral lung transplantation-A large single-center analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objectifying donor lung quality is difficult and currently there is no consensus. Several donor scoring systems have been proposed in recent years. They all lack large-scale external validation and widespread acceptance. A retrospective evaluation of 2201 donor lungs offered to the lung transplant program at the Medical University of Vienna between January 2010 and June 2018 was performed. Five different lung donor scores were calculated for each offer (Oto, ET, MALT, UMN-DLQI, and ODSS). Prediction of organ utilization, 1-year graft survival, and long-term outcome were analyzed for each score. 1049 organs were rejected at the initial offer (group I), 209 lungs declined after procurement (group II), and 841 lungs accepted and transplanted (group III). The Oto score was superior in predicting acceptance of the initial offer (AUC: 0.795; CI: 0.776-0.815) and actual donor utilization (AUC: 0.660; CI: 0.618-0.701). Prediction of 1-year graft survival was best using the MALT score, Oto score, and UMN-DLQI. Stratification of early outcome by MALT was significant for length of mechanical ventilation (LMV), PGD3 rates, ICU stay and hospital stay, and in-hospital-mortality, respectively. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest validation analysis comparing currently available donor scores. The Oto score was superior in predicting organ utilization, and MALT score and UMN-DLQI for predicting outcome after lung transplantation.

SUBMITTER: Schwarz S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8259697 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of donor scores in bilateral lung transplantation-A large single-center analysis.

Schwarz Stefan S Rahimi Nina N Kifjak Daria D Muckenhuber Moritz M Watzenböck Martin M Benazzo Alberto A Jaksch Peter P Knapp Sylvia S Klepetko Walter W Hoetzenecker Konrad K

American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons 20201213 6

Objectifying donor lung quality is difficult and currently there is no consensus. Several donor scoring systems have been proposed in recent years. They all lack large-scale external validation and widespread acceptance. A retrospective evaluation of 2201 donor lungs offered to the lung transplant program at the Medical University of Vienna between January 2010 and June 2018 was performed. Five different lung donor scores were calculated for each offer (Oto, ET, MALT, UMN-DLQI, and ODSS). Predic ...[more]

PMID: 33210825

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal life support (ECLS) is not routinely used at our center during sequential single-lung transplantation (LTx), but is restricted to anticipate and overcome hemodynamic and respiratory problems occurring peri-operatively. In this retrospective descriptive cohort study, we aim to describe our single-center experience with ECLS in LTx, analyzing ECLS-related complications.MethodsAll transplantations with peri-operative ECLS use [2010-2020] were retrospectively analyzed. Multi-organ and heart-lung transplantation were excluded. Demographics, support type and indications are described. Complications are categorized according to the underlying nature and type. Data are presented as median [interquartile range (IQR)]. Kaplan-Meier was used for survival analysis.ResultsThe overall use of ECLS was 22% (156/703 patients) with a mean age of 52 years (IQR, 36-59 years). Transplant indications in ECLS cohort were interstitial lung disease (38%; n=60), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (19%; n=29), cystic fibrosis (17%; n=26) and others (26%; n=41). Per indication, 94% (15/16) of pulmonary arterial hypertension patients required ECLS, whereas only 8% (29/382) of COPD patients did. In 16% (25/156) of supported patients, veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was initiated, while 77% (120/156) required veno-arterial support, and 7% (11/156) cardiopulmonary bypass. Thirty-day mortality was 6% (9/156). Sixteen percent (25/156) of patients were bridged to transplantation on ECLS and 24% (37/156) required post-operative support. Main reasons to use ECLS were intra-operative hemodynamic instability (53%; n=82), ventilation/oxygenation problems (22%; n=34) and reperfusion edema (17%; n=26). Overall incidence of patients with at least one ECLS-related complication was 67% (n=104). Most common complications were hemothorax (25%; n=39), need for continuous renal replacement therapy (19%; n=30), and thromboembolism (14%; n=22).ConclusionsECLS was required in 22% of LTxs, with a reported ECLS-related complication rate of 67%, of which the most common was hemothorax. Larger databases are needed to further analyze complications and develop tailored deployment strategies for ECLS-use in LTx.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Lung transplantation remains the only curative treatment for end-stage lung disease, conferring a better survival for some IPF patients, but whether they should receive double lung transplantation (DLT) or single lung transplantation (SLT) is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine which type of lung transplantation was more effective and relatively safe in IPF patients by meta-analysis. METHODS:Publications comparing overall survival (OS) or other perioperative characteristics between IPF patients undergoing SLT and DLT were selected from electronic databases. The hazard ratios (HRs) were abstracted or calculated to evaluate the survival outcome. Odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) were used to compare the causes of death or perioperative parameters. A random-effect model was used to combine data. Heterogeneity was quantified by means of an I2 with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The publication bias was estimated using the Eggers test with Begg's funnel plots. RESULTS:16 studies with 17,872 IPF cases who met the inclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis. SLT was associated with declined post-transplant FEV1% (MD = -15.37, 95% CI:-22.28,-8.47; P<0.001), FVC % (MD = -12.52, 95% CI:-19.45,-5.59; P<0.001) and DLCO% (MD = -13.85, 95% CI:-20.42,-7.29; P<0.001), but no significant advantage of DLT over SLT was seen in the overall survival outcome (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91-1.29; P = 0.391). Subgroup analyses for studies of follow-up period ≥ 60 months also showed similar results (all P-values>0.05). Moreover, there was fewer deaths attributable to primary graft dysfunction in SLT recipients (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.2-0.48; P<0.001), while more patients with SLT died of malignancy (OR = 3.44, 95% CI: 2.06-5.77; P<0.001). CONCLUSION:Our findings suggest that DLT was associated with better postoperative pulmonary function, but there was no difference in long-term overall survival between patients undergoing DLT and SLT. However, further high-quality and large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Comparison of donor scores in bilateral lung transplantation-A large single-center analysis.

Publications

Comparison of donor scores in bilateral lung transplantation-A large single-center analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets