J. Hayanga, Alena Lira, T. Vlahu, Jingyan Yang, J. Aboagye, Heather K. Hayanga, J. Luketich, J. D’Cunha
{"title":"美国高肺分配评分患者的肺移植:需要评估评分特定结果的证据","authors":"J. Hayanga, Alena Lira, T. Vlahu, Jingyan Yang, J. Aboagye, Heather K. Hayanga, J. Luketich, J. D’Cunha","doi":"10.1155/2015/836751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective. The lung allocation score (LAS) resulted in a lung transplantation (LT) selection process guided by clinical acuity. We sought to evaluate the relationship between LAS and outcomes. Methods. We analyzed Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) data pertaining to recipients between 2005 and 2012. We stratified them into quartiles based on LAS and compared survival and predictors of mortality. Results. We identified 10,304 consecutive patients, comprising 2,576 in each LAS quartile (quartile 1 (26.3–35.5), quartile 2 (35.6–39.3), quartile 3 (39.4–48.6), and quartile 4 (48.7–95.7)). Survival after 30 days (96.9% versus 96.8% versus 96.0% versus 94.8%), 90 days (94.6% versus 93.7% versus 93.3% versus 90.9%), 1 year (87.2% versus 85.0% versus 84.8% versus 80.9%), and 5 years (55.4% versus 54.5% versus 52.5% versus 48.8%) was higher in the lower groups. There was a significantly higher 5-year mortality in the highest LAS group (HR 1.13, p = 0.030, HR 1.17, p = 0.01, and HR 1.17, p = 0.02) comparing quartiles 2, 3, and 4, respectively, to quartile 1. Conclusion. Overall, outcomes in recipients with higher LAS are worse than those in patients with lower LAS. These data should inform more individualized evidence-based discussion during pretransplant counseling.","PeriodicalId":45795,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Transplantation","volume":"2015 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2015/836751","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lung Transplantation in Patients with High Lung Allocation Scores in the US: Evidence for the Need to Evaluate Score Specific Outcomes\",\"authors\":\"J. Hayanga, Alena Lira, T. Vlahu, Jingyan Yang, J. Aboagye, Heather K. Hayanga, J. Luketich, J. D’Cunha\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2015/836751\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective. The lung allocation score (LAS) resulted in a lung transplantation (LT) selection process guided by clinical acuity. We sought to evaluate the relationship between LAS and outcomes. Methods. We analyzed Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) data pertaining to recipients between 2005 and 2012. We stratified them into quartiles based on LAS and compared survival and predictors of mortality. Results. We identified 10,304 consecutive patients, comprising 2,576 in each LAS quartile (quartile 1 (26.3–35.5), quartile 2 (35.6–39.3), quartile 3 (39.4–48.6), and quartile 4 (48.7–95.7)). Survival after 30 days (96.9% versus 96.8% versus 96.0% versus 94.8%), 90 days (94.6% versus 93.7% versus 93.3% versus 90.9%), 1 year (87.2% versus 85.0% versus 84.8% versus 80.9%), and 5 years (55.4% versus 54.5% versus 52.5% versus 48.8%) was higher in the lower groups. There was a significantly higher 5-year mortality in the highest LAS group (HR 1.13, p = 0.030, HR 1.17, p = 0.01, and HR 1.17, p = 0.02) comparing quartiles 2, 3, and 4, respectively, to quartile 1. Conclusion. Overall, outcomes in recipients with higher LAS are worse than those in patients with lower LAS. These data should inform more individualized evidence-based discussion during pretransplant counseling.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Transplantation\",\"volume\":\"2015 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2015/836751\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/836751\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/836751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20
摘要
目标。肺分配评分(LAS)导致肺移植(LT)的选择过程由临床敏锐度指导。我们试图评估LAS与预后之间的关系。方法。我们分析了2005年至2012年间移植受者的科学登记(SRTR)数据。我们根据LAS将他们分成四分位数,并比较了生存率和死亡率预测因子。结果。我们确定了10,304例连续患者,其中每个LAS四分位数(四分位数1(26.3-35.5),四分位数2(35.6-39.3),四分位数3(39.4-48.6)和四分位数4(48.7-95.7))中有2,576例。低剂量组30天生存率(96.9%对96.8%对96.0%对94.8%)、90天生存率(94.6%对93.7%对93.3%对90.9%)、1年生存率(87.2%对85.0%对84.8%对80.9%)和5年生存率(55.4%对54.5%对52.5%对48.8%)较高。与四分位数2、3和4相比,最高LAS组的5年死亡率显著高于四分位数1 (HR 1.13, p = 0.030, HR 1.17, p = 0.01, HR 1.17, p = 0.02)。结论。总体而言,高LAS患者的预后比低LAS患者差。这些数据应该为移植前咨询提供更个性化的基于证据的讨论。
Lung Transplantation in Patients with High Lung Allocation Scores in the US: Evidence for the Need to Evaluate Score Specific Outcomes
Objective. The lung allocation score (LAS) resulted in a lung transplantation (LT) selection process guided by clinical acuity. We sought to evaluate the relationship between LAS and outcomes. Methods. We analyzed Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) data pertaining to recipients between 2005 and 2012. We stratified them into quartiles based on LAS and compared survival and predictors of mortality. Results. We identified 10,304 consecutive patients, comprising 2,576 in each LAS quartile (quartile 1 (26.3–35.5), quartile 2 (35.6–39.3), quartile 3 (39.4–48.6), and quartile 4 (48.7–95.7)). Survival after 30 days (96.9% versus 96.8% versus 96.0% versus 94.8%), 90 days (94.6% versus 93.7% versus 93.3% versus 90.9%), 1 year (87.2% versus 85.0% versus 84.8% versus 80.9%), and 5 years (55.4% versus 54.5% versus 52.5% versus 48.8%) was higher in the lower groups. There was a significantly higher 5-year mortality in the highest LAS group (HR 1.13, p = 0.030, HR 1.17, p = 0.01, and HR 1.17, p = 0.02) comparing quartiles 2, 3, and 4, respectively, to quartile 1. Conclusion. Overall, outcomes in recipients with higher LAS are worse than those in patients with lower LAS. These data should inform more individualized evidence-based discussion during pretransplant counseling.