人工石质矽肺单肺移植与双肺移植的结果:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Miri Dotan, Dror Rosengarten, Karam Azem, Shai Fein, Yael Shostak, Dorit Shitenberg, Yuri Peysakhovich, Yaron D Barac, Elizabeth Fireman, Paul Blanc, Osnat Shtraichman, Mordechai Reuven Kramer
{"title":"人工石质矽肺单肺移植与双肺移植的结果:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Miri Dotan, Dror Rosengarten, Karam Azem, Shai Fein, Yael Shostak, Dorit Shitenberg, Yuri Peysakhovich, Yaron D Barac, Elizabeth Fireman, Paul Blanc, Osnat Shtraichman, Mordechai Reuven Kramer","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Silicosis, caused by inhaling crystalline silica, is a growing global health concern exacerbated by the increased use of artificial stone. In end-stage silicosis, lung transplantation may be the only available treatment. While double lung transplantation has long-term survival benefits over single lung transplantation, this issue was not assessed in patients with silicosis.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Our study aimed to evaluate survival outcomes in silicosis patients undergoing lung transplantation, comparing single versus double lung transplants.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>This is a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent lung transplantation for silicosis at our centre between March 2006 and March 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, our centre conducted 778 lung transplantations, 40 of them (5.14%) were for silicosis, 25 single lung transplants and 15 double lung transplants. Double lung transplantation recipients experienced a more challenging surgical course due to adhesions and difficulty in explantation, associated with a significantly higher volume of blood products (8.00±15.13 units vs 24.85±24.41 units, p=0.023) and longer ischaemic times (243.63±85.36 min vs 327.67±95.23 min, p=0.009). There was no significant difference in the risk of death or re-transplantation in the single lung versus the double lung group (HR 1.163, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.861; p=0.74). Additionally, the two groups had no significant disparities in pulmonary function test results at 1 and 3 years post-transplant (51.93±22.43 vs 66.67±32.09 forced expiratory volume in the first second percent predicted at 36 months follow-up, p=0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Given the intricate surgical procedure required for transplanting lungs in cases of silicosis, longer ischaemic times, increased need for blood products and the absence of definitive evidence supporting double lung transplantation in this population, it may be prudent to contemplate prioritising single lung transplantation for these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12481386/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single versus double lung transplantation outcomes in artificial stone silicosis: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Miri Dotan, Dror Rosengarten, Karam Azem, Shai Fein, Yael Shostak, Dorit Shitenberg, Yuri Peysakhovich, Yaron D Barac, Elizabeth Fireman, Paul Blanc, Osnat Shtraichman, Mordechai Reuven Kramer\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Silicosis, caused by inhaling crystalline silica, is a growing global health concern exacerbated by the increased use of artificial stone. In end-stage silicosis, lung transplantation may be the only available treatment. While double lung transplantation has long-term survival benefits over single lung transplantation, this issue was not assessed in patients with silicosis.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Our study aimed to evaluate survival outcomes in silicosis patients undergoing lung transplantation, comparing single versus double lung transplants.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>This is a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent lung transplantation for silicosis at our centre between March 2006 and March 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, our centre conducted 778 lung transplantations, 40 of them (5.14%) were for silicosis, 25 single lung transplants and 15 double lung transplants. Double lung transplantation recipients experienced a more challenging surgical course due to adhesions and difficulty in explantation, associated with a significantly higher volume of blood products (8.00±15.13 units vs 24.85±24.41 units, p=0.023) and longer ischaemic times (243.63±85.36 min vs 327.67±95.23 min, p=0.009). There was no significant difference in the risk of death or re-transplantation in the single lung versus the double lung group (HR 1.163, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.861; p=0.74). Additionally, the two groups had no significant disparities in pulmonary function test results at 1 and 3 years post-transplant (51.93±22.43 vs 66.67±32.09 forced expiratory volume in the first second percent predicted at 36 months follow-up, p=0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Given the intricate surgical procedure required for transplanting lungs in cases of silicosis, longer ischaemic times, increased need for blood products and the absence of definitive evidence supporting double lung transplantation in this population, it may be prudent to contemplate prioritising single lung transplantation for these patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12481386/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002703\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002703","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:矽肺病是由吸入结晶二氧化硅引起的,是一个日益严重的全球健康问题,由于人造石的使用增加而加剧。对于终末期矽肺,肺移植可能是唯一可行的治疗方法。虽然双肺移植比单肺移植具有长期生存效益,但在矽肺患者中没有评估这一问题。研究问题:我们的研究旨在评估矽肺患者接受肺移植的生存结果,比较单肺移植和双肺移植。研究设计和方法:这是一项单中心回顾性队列研究,纳入了2006年3月至2024年3月期间在我中心接受肺移植治疗矽肺的所有患者。结果:本中心研究期间共进行肺移植778例,其中矽肺移植40例(5.14%),单肺移植25例,双肺移植15例。双肺移植受者由于粘连和移植困难,手术过程更具挑战性,血制品体积显著增加(8.00±15.13单位vs 24.85±24.41单位,p=0.023),缺血时间显著延长(243.63±85.36分钟vs 327.67±95.23分钟,p=0.009)。单肺组与双肺组的死亡或再移植风险无显著差异(HR 1.163, 95% CI 0.473 ~ 2.861; p=0.74)。此外,两组移植后1年和3年肺功能测试结果无显著差异(36个月随访预测前2%用力呼气量51.93±22.43 vs 66.67±32.09,p=0.25)。结论:考虑到矽肺患者肺移植需要复杂的外科手术,更长的缺血时间,对血液制品的需求增加以及缺乏明确的证据支持双肺移植,考虑对这些患者优先进行单肺移植可能是谨慎的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Single versus double lung transplantation outcomes in artificial stone silicosis: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.

Background: Silicosis, caused by inhaling crystalline silica, is a growing global health concern exacerbated by the increased use of artificial stone. In end-stage silicosis, lung transplantation may be the only available treatment. While double lung transplantation has long-term survival benefits over single lung transplantation, this issue was not assessed in patients with silicosis.

Research question: Our study aimed to evaluate survival outcomes in silicosis patients undergoing lung transplantation, comparing single versus double lung transplants.

Study design and methods: This is a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent lung transplantation for silicosis at our centre between March 2006 and March 2024.

Results: During the study period, our centre conducted 778 lung transplantations, 40 of them (5.14%) were for silicosis, 25 single lung transplants and 15 double lung transplants. Double lung transplantation recipients experienced a more challenging surgical course due to adhesions and difficulty in explantation, associated with a significantly higher volume of blood products (8.00±15.13 units vs 24.85±24.41 units, p=0.023) and longer ischaemic times (243.63±85.36 min vs 327.67±95.23 min, p=0.009). There was no significant difference in the risk of death or re-transplantation in the single lung versus the double lung group (HR 1.163, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.861; p=0.74). Additionally, the two groups had no significant disparities in pulmonary function test results at 1 and 3 years post-transplant (51.93±22.43 vs 66.67±32.09 forced expiratory volume in the first second percent predicted at 36 months follow-up, p=0.25).

Conclusion: Given the intricate surgical procedure required for transplanting lungs in cases of silicosis, longer ischaemic times, increased need for blood products and the absence of definitive evidence supporting double lung transplantation in this population, it may be prudent to contemplate prioritising single lung transplantation for these patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信