Search

Background: Infection is the most common cause of mortality within the first year after lung transplantation (LTx). The management of perioperative antibiotic therapy is a major issue, but little is known about worldwide practices.Methods: We sent by email a survey dealing with 5 daily clinical vignettes concerning perioperative antibiotic therapy to 180 LTx centers around the world. The invitation and a weekly reminder were sent to lung transplant specialists for a single consensus answer per center during a 3-month period.Results: We received a total of 99 responses from 24 countries, mostly from Western Europe (n = 46) and the USA (n = 34). Systematic screening for bronchial recipient colonization before LTx was mostly performed with sputum samples (72%), regardless of the underlying lung disease. In recipients without colonization, antibiotics with activity against gram-negative bacteria resistant strains (piperacillin / tazobactam, cefepime, ceftazidime, carbapenems) were reported in 72% of the centers, and antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (mainly vancomycin) were reported in 38% of the centers. For these recipients, the duration of antibiotics reported was 7 days (33%) or less (26%) or stopped when cultures of donor and recipients were reported negatives (12%). In recipients with previous colonization, antibiotics were adapted to the susceptibility of the most resistant strain and given for at least 14 days (67%).Conclusion: Practices vary widely around the world, but resistant bacterial strains are mostly targeted even if no colonization occurs. The antibiotic duration reported was longer for colonized recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)