Outcomes of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) lung transplantation.

IF 6.4 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Selena S Li, Masaki Funamoto, Ruby Singh, Seyed A Rabi, Antonia Kreso, Eriberto Michel, Nathaniel B Langer, Asishana A Osho
{"title":"Outcomes of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) lung transplantation.","authors":"Selena S Li, Masaki Funamoto, Ruby Singh, Seyed A Rabi, Antonia Kreso, Eriberto Michel, Nathaniel B Langer, Asishana A Osho","doi":"10.1016/j.healun.2024.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Donation after circulatory death (DCD) and ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) have been adopted to expand the donor pool in lung transplantation, but outcomes data have been conflicting. This study explores outcomes of DCD and EVLP lung transplantation in the modern era.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adult lung transplants from January 1, 2015 to March 1, 2023. Loss to follow-up, multiorgan, and prior lung transplants were excluded. DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) lung transplants were compared with subgroup analysis +/- EVLP. Outcomes were survival and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 1,103 DCD (221 with EVLP and 882 without) and 17,973 DBD lung transplants (524 with EVLP and 17,449 without). Median follow-up was 3 years. DCD donors were less likely to be CDC high risk (19.3% vs 24.1%, p < 0.001), have purulence on bronchoscopy (13.3% vs 18.3%, p < 0.001), or infiltrates on chest X-ray (66.7% vs 67.8%, p = 0.013). EVLP was more likely to be used for DCD transplants (20.0% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001). After transplant, DCD recipients were more likely to be reintubated (24.3% vs 18.5%, p < 0.001) and require ECMO within 72 hours (14.9% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001), and DCD donation was an independent risk factor for these complications on multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival did not differ significantly between DCD and DBD transplants on adjusted survival analysis in the early or modern era (p = 0.774 and p = 0.468, respectively). On subgroup analysis, the DCD+EVLP cohort had significantly worse survival in the modern era, which remained significant after adjusting for donor and recipient factors (p = 0.005). EVLP was an independent risk factor for graft failure in the DCD cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.77, p = 0.047) but did not significantly affect DBD graft survival (p = 0.870). Risk factors for graft failure and mortality in the DCD+EVLP cohort included pulmonary hypertension (HR 77.5, 95% CI 6.15-979, p < 0.001), transfusion before transplant (HR 2.60, 95% CI 1.07-6.31, p = 0.035), elevated creatinine (HR 2.82, 95% CI 1.34-5.90, p = 0.006), and higher allocation score (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.017) CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest increased risks of mortality and perioperative complications following transplantation with DCD lungs that have undergone EVLP. DCD lung transplantation without EVLP confers equivalent survival but with some increase in perioperative complications. Further investigation and careful recipient selection are warranted to optimize the use of these extended criteria donors in the modern era.</p>","PeriodicalId":15900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2024.10.001","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) and ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) have been adopted to expand the donor pool in lung transplantation, but outcomes data have been conflicting. This study explores outcomes of DCD and EVLP lung transplantation in the modern era.

Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adult lung transplants from January 1, 2015 to March 1, 2023. Loss to follow-up, multiorgan, and prior lung transplants were excluded. DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) lung transplants were compared with subgroup analysis +/- EVLP. Outcomes were survival and postoperative complications.

Results: The study included 1,103 DCD (221 with EVLP and 882 without) and 17,973 DBD lung transplants (524 with EVLP and 17,449 without). Median follow-up was 3 years. DCD donors were less likely to be CDC high risk (19.3% vs 24.1%, p < 0.001), have purulence on bronchoscopy (13.3% vs 18.3%, p < 0.001), or infiltrates on chest X-ray (66.7% vs 67.8%, p = 0.013). EVLP was more likely to be used for DCD transplants (20.0% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001). After transplant, DCD recipients were more likely to be reintubated (24.3% vs 18.5%, p < 0.001) and require ECMO within 72 hours (14.9% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001), and DCD donation was an independent risk factor for these complications on multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival did not differ significantly between DCD and DBD transplants on adjusted survival analysis in the early or modern era (p = 0.774 and p = 0.468, respectively). On subgroup analysis, the DCD+EVLP cohort had significantly worse survival in the modern era, which remained significant after adjusting for donor and recipient factors (p = 0.005). EVLP was an independent risk factor for graft failure in the DCD cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.77, p = 0.047) but did not significantly affect DBD graft survival (p = 0.870). Risk factors for graft failure and mortality in the DCD+EVLP cohort included pulmonary hypertension (HR 77.5, 95% CI 6.15-979, p < 0.001), transfusion before transplant (HR 2.60, 95% CI 1.07-6.31, p = 0.035), elevated creatinine (HR 2.82, 95% CI 1.34-5.90, p = 0.006), and higher allocation score (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.017) CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest increased risks of mortality and perioperative complications following transplantation with DCD lungs that have undergone EVLP. DCD lung transplantation without EVLP confers equivalent survival but with some increase in perioperative complications. Further investigation and careful recipient selection are warranted to optimize the use of these extended criteria donors in the modern era.

循环死亡后捐献 (DCD) 和体外肺灌注 (EVLP) 肺移植的结果。
背景:循环死亡后捐献(DCD)和体外肺灌注(EVLP)已被采用来扩大肺移植的供体库,但结果数据一直相互矛盾。本研究探讨了现代DCD肺移植的中期效果,重点关注EVLP和移植失败的风险因素:方法:查询了器官共享联合网络(UNOS)数据库中2015年1月1日至2023年1月3日的成人肺移植数据。不包括失去随访、多器官移植和既往肺移植。比较了DCD与DBD(脑死亡后捐献)肺移植,并进行了+/- EVLP亚组分析。结果为存活率和术后并发症。对早期时代(2015-2018年)和现代时代(2019-2023年)的总生存率分别进行了分析:研究包括1103例DCD(221例有EVLP,882例无EVLP)和17973例脑死亡(DBD)后捐献肺移植(524例有EVLP,17449例无EVLP)。中位随访时间为 3 年。DCD 捐赠者中 CDC 高风险者较少(19.3% vs 24.1%,p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
1667
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, the official publication of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, brings readers essential scholarly and timely information in the field of cardio-pulmonary transplantation, mechanical and biological support of the failing heart, advanced lung disease (including pulmonary vascular disease) and cell replacement therapy. Importantly, the journal also serves as a medium of communication of pre-clinical sciences in all these rapidly expanding areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信