首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


Deceased-donor lobar lung transplant: A successful strategy for small-sized recipients
Authors:Jose Luis Campo-Canaveral De La Cruz  Ben Dunne  Philippe Lemaitre  Mindaugas Rackauskas  Jiri Pozniak  Yui Watanabe  Andrea Mariscal  Jonathan Yeung  Kazuhiro Yasufuku  Andrew Pierre  Marc de Perrot  Thomas K Waddell  Marcelo Cypel  Shaf Keshavjee  Laura Donahoe
Institution:1. Institute of Medical Science, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada;2. Latner Thoracic Surgical Research Laboratories, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada;3. Departments of Surgery, Medicine and Physiology, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Abstract:ObjectivesLobar lung transplantation (LLTx) from deceased donors is a potential solution for donor–recipient size mismatch for small sized recipients. We reviewed our institutional experience to compare outcomes after LLTx to standard lung transplantation (LTx).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed transplants in our institution from January 2000 to December 2017. LLTx early- and long-term outcomes were compared with LTx. Additional analysis of outcomes was performed after dividing the cohort into 2 eras (era 1, 2000-2012; era 2, 2013-2017).ResultsAmong the entire cohort (1665), 75 were LLTx (4.5%). Compared with LTx, LLTx were more frequently bridged to transplant with extracorporeal life support or mechanical ventilation and were transplanted in a rapidly deteriorating status (respectively, 20% vs 4.4%, P = .001; 22.7% vs 7.9, P < .001; and 41.3% vs 26.5%, P = .013). LLTx had longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay (respectively, median 17 vs 4 days, and 45 vs 23, both P < .001), and greater 30-day mortality (13.3% vs 4.3%, P = .001) and 90-day mortality (17.3% vs 7.2%, P = .003). In era 2, despite a significantly greater 30-day mortality (10.8% vs 2.8%, P = .026), there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between LLTx and LTx (13.5% vs 5.1%, P = .070). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was not significantly different between LLTx and LTx (73.2% vs 84.4%, 56.9% vs 68.4% and 50.4% vs 55.8, P = .088).ConclusionsAlthough LLTx is a high-risk procedure, both mid- and long-term survival are comparable with LTx in all cohorts in the modern era. LLTx therefore represents a valuable surgical option for small-sized recipients.
Keywords:lung transplant  lobar lung transplant  size matching  CLAD"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0020"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"chronic lung allograft dysfunction  CPB"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0030"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"cardiopulmonary bypass  DCD"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0040"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"donation after circulatory death  ECLS"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0050"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"extracorporeal life support  ECMO"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0060"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"extracorporeal membrane oxygenation  EVLP"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0070"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"ex vivo lung perfusion  FEV1"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0080"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"forced expiratory volume in 1 second  ICU"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0090"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"intensive care unit  LLTx"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0100"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"lobar lung transplantation  LOS"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0110"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"length of stay  LTx"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0120"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"lung transplantation  PGD"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0130"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"primary graft dysfunction  TLC"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0140"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"total lung capacity
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号