Search

Introduction: Lung graft allocation can be based on a score (Lung Allocation Score) as in the USA or sequential proposals combined with a discrete priority model as in France. We aimed to analyse the impact of allocation policy on the outcome of urgent lung transplantation (LT)., Methods: US United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and French Cristal databases were retrospectively reviewed to analyse LT performed between 2007 and 2017. We analysed the mortality risk of urgent LT by fitting Cox models and adjusted Restricted Mean Survival Time. We then compared the outcome after urgent LT in the UNOS and Cristal groups using a propensity score matching., Results: After exclusion of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema and redo LT, 3775 and 12 561 patients underwent urgent LT and non-urgent LT in the USA while 600 and 2071 patients underwent urgent LT and non-urgent LT in France. In univariate analysis, urgent LT was associated with an HR for death of 1.24 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.48) in the Cristal group and 1.12 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.19) in the UNOS group. In multivariate analysis, the effect of urgent LT was attenuated and no longer statistically significant in the Cristal database (HR 1.1 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.33)) while it remained constant and statistically significant in the UNOS database (HR 1.12 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.2)). Survival comparison of urgent LT patients between the two countries was significantly different in favour of the UNOS group (1-year survival rates 84.1% (80.9%-87.3%) vs 75.4% (71.8%-79.1%) and 3-year survival rates 66.3% (61.9%-71.1%) vs 62.7% (58.5%-67.1%), respectively)., Conclusion: Urgent LT is associated with adverse outcome in the USA and in France with a better prognosis in the US score-based system taking post-transplant survival into account. This difference between two healthcare systems is multifactorial., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients with end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are increasingly having bilateral rather than single-lung transplantation., Objective: To compare survival after single and bilateral lung transplantation in patients with IPF., Design: Analysis of data from the United Network of Organ Sharing registry., Setting: Transplantation centers in the United States., Patients: 3327 patients with IPF who had single (2146 patients [64.5%]) or bilateral (1181 patients [35.5%]) lung transplantation between 1987 and 2009., Measurements: Survival times and causes of death after lung transplantation. Selection bias was accounted for by multivariate risk adjustment, propensity score risk adjustment, and propensity-based matching., Results: Median survival time was longer after bilateral lung transplantation than single-lung transplantation (5.2 years [CI, 4.3 to 6.7 years] vs. 3.8 years [CI, 3.6 to 4.1 years]; P < 0.001). However, survival times for the 2 procedures did not differ after adjustment for baseline differences, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality with bilateral transplantation ranging from 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.02) to 0.96 (CI, 0.77 to 1.20) in different analyses. Bilateral lung transplantation seemed to result in harm within the first year (HR, 1.18 [CI, 0.98 to 1.42]) but survival benefit thereafter (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.59 to 0.87]). Primary graft failure was a more common cause of death among patients who had bilateral rather than single-lung transplantation (3.7% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.002). Cancer was a more common cause of death among patients who had single rather than bilateral lung transplantation (unadjusted HR for death among single vs. bilateral transplant recipients, 3.60 [CI, 2.16 to 6.05]; P <0.001)., Limitation: Causes of death were ascertained without an adjudication committee and must be interpreted cautiously., Conclusion: Survival did not differ between patients who had single and bilateral lung transplantation. Single-lung transplantation confers short-term survival benefit but long-term harm, whereas bilateral transplantation confers short-term harm but long-term survival benefit., Primary Funding Source: None.

Rationale: Although chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is the first indication for lung transplantation, the benefit of the procedure in terms of survival remains debated., Objectives: To estimate the determinants of the survival benefit of lung transplantation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease., Methods: Using information from the United Network for Organ Sharing database on 8,182 patients, we developed an approach based on numerical simulations to estimate the survival effect of lung transplantation., Measurements and Main Results: The main outcome measure was the difference between median survival with transplantation and that without transplantation measured from time of transplant list registration. Survival benefit was greater with double than with single lung transplantation (mean difference, 307 d [95% confidence interval, 217-523]). With double lung transplantation, 44.6% of patients would gain 1 year or more, 29.4% would gain or lose less than 1 year, and 26% would lose 1 year or more. Major determinants of the survival effect of transplantation were systolic pulmonary artery pressure, FEV(1), body mass index, exercise capacity, functional status, and the need for continuous mechanical ventilation or oxygen. For instance, 79% of patients with an FEV(1) less than 16% of the predicted value would gain 1 year or more with double lung transplantation as compared with only 11% of patients with an FEV(1) of more than 25%., Conclusions: We identified several factors associated with the survival benefit of lung transplantation. External validation of our models is required before translating these results into clinical practice.