心脏和脑死亡捐献后的体内肺灌注。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Annals of Thoracic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.11.008
Doug A Gouchoe, Ervin Y Cui, Divyaam Satija, Victor Heh, Christine E Darcy, Matthew C Henn, Kukbin Choi, David R Nunley, Nahush A Mokadam, Asvin M Ganapathi, Bryan A Whitson
{"title":"心脏和脑死亡捐献后的体内肺灌注。","authors":"Doug A Gouchoe, Ervin Y Cui, Divyaam Satija, Victor Heh, Christine E Darcy, Matthew C Henn, Kukbin Choi, David R Nunley, Nahush A Mokadam, Asvin M Ganapathi, Bryan A Whitson","doi":"10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.11.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allografts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) or brain death donors may be evaluated by ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) to assess quality for transplantation. We sought to determine the association of donor type with transplantation outcomes at a national level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for lung transplant recipients, which were stratified into: DCD EVLP, brain death EVLP, standard DCD and standard brain death, followed by an unadjusted analysis. 1:1 propensity matching based on donor and recipient characteristics was used to compare DCD v DCD EVLP, brain death v brain death EVLP and brain death v DCD EVLP. The cohorts were assessed with comparative statistics. Finally, static and portable EVLP were compared to determine independent association with increased mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The unadjusted DCD EVLP group had significantly higher incidence of post-operative morbidity and mortality. 3-year survival was significantly lower in the DCD EVLP group, 65.3% (p=0.026). Following matching, the EVLP groups had significantly higher morbidity, and in-hospital mortality (DCD EVLP v brain death), but mid-term survival was no longer significantly different. However, the DCD EVLP group had about ∼6% lower survival than the DCD group (p=0.05) and about ∼7% lower survival than the brain death group (p=0.12). Within the EVLP groups, static and portable EVLP were not independently associated with increased mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Expansion of DCD EVLP allografts increases organ access, though providers should be aware of potential increases in complications and mortality as compared to DCD alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":50976,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Thoracic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in Donation after Cardiac and Brain Death Donation.\",\"authors\":\"Doug A Gouchoe, Ervin Y Cui, Divyaam Satija, Victor Heh, Christine E Darcy, Matthew C Henn, Kukbin Choi, David R Nunley, Nahush A Mokadam, Asvin M Ganapathi, Bryan A Whitson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.11.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allografts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) or brain death donors may be evaluated by ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) to assess quality for transplantation. We sought to determine the association of donor type with transplantation outcomes at a national level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for lung transplant recipients, which were stratified into: DCD EVLP, brain death EVLP, standard DCD and standard brain death, followed by an unadjusted analysis. 1:1 propensity matching based on donor and recipient characteristics was used to compare DCD v DCD EVLP, brain death v brain death EVLP and brain death v DCD EVLP. The cohorts were assessed with comparative statistics. Finally, static and portable EVLP were compared to determine independent association with increased mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The unadjusted DCD EVLP group had significantly higher incidence of post-operative morbidity and mortality. 3-year survival was significantly lower in the DCD EVLP group, 65.3% (p=0.026). Following matching, the EVLP groups had significantly higher morbidity, and in-hospital mortality (DCD EVLP v brain death), but mid-term survival was no longer significantly different. However, the DCD EVLP group had about ∼6% lower survival than the DCD group (p=0.05) and about ∼7% lower survival than the brain death group (p=0.12). Within the EVLP groups, static and portable EVLP were not independently associated with increased mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Expansion of DCD EVLP allografts increases organ access, though providers should be aware of potential increases in complications and mortality as compared to DCD alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Thoracic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Thoracic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.11.008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Thoracic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.11.008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:循环死亡(DCD)后捐献或脑死亡捐献者的异体移植物可通过体外肺灌注(EVLP)进行评估,以评估移植质量。我们试图在全国范围内确定捐献者类型与移植结果之间的关系:方法:我们查询了器官共享联合网络数据库中的肺移植受者,并将其分为以下几类:DCD EVLP、脑死亡 EVLP、标准 DCD 和标准脑死亡,然后进行未调整分析。根据供体和受体特征进行1:1倾向匹配,比较DCD与DCD EVLP、脑死亡与脑死亡EVLP以及脑死亡与DCD EVLP。通过比较统计对队列进行了评估。最后,对静态和便携式EVLP进行比较,以确定其与死亡率增加的独立关联:结果:未经调整的DCD EVLP组的术后发病率和死亡率明显更高。DCD EVLP组的3年存活率明显较低,为65.3%(P=0.026)。匹配后,EVLP组的发病率和院内死亡率(DCD EVLP与脑死亡)明显更高,但中期存活率不再有明显差异。然而,DCD EVLP组的存活率比DCD组低约6%(P=0.05),比脑死亡组低约7%(P=0.12)。在EVLP组中,静态和便携式EVLP与死亡率增加无独立关联:结论:DCD EVLP同种异体移植的扩展增加了器官获取的机会,但与单独使用DCD相比,提供者应注意并发症和死亡率的潜在增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in Donation after Cardiac and Brain Death Donation.

Background: Allografts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) or brain death donors may be evaluated by ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) to assess quality for transplantation. We sought to determine the association of donor type with transplantation outcomes at a national level.

Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for lung transplant recipients, which were stratified into: DCD EVLP, brain death EVLP, standard DCD and standard brain death, followed by an unadjusted analysis. 1:1 propensity matching based on donor and recipient characteristics was used to compare DCD v DCD EVLP, brain death v brain death EVLP and brain death v DCD EVLP. The cohorts were assessed with comparative statistics. Finally, static and portable EVLP were compared to determine independent association with increased mortality.

Results: The unadjusted DCD EVLP group had significantly higher incidence of post-operative morbidity and mortality. 3-year survival was significantly lower in the DCD EVLP group, 65.3% (p=0.026). Following matching, the EVLP groups had significantly higher morbidity, and in-hospital mortality (DCD EVLP v brain death), but mid-term survival was no longer significantly different. However, the DCD EVLP group had about ∼6% lower survival than the DCD group (p=0.05) and about ∼7% lower survival than the brain death group (p=0.12). Within the EVLP groups, static and portable EVLP were not independently associated with increased mortality.

Conclusions: Expansion of DCD EVLP allografts increases organ access, though providers should be aware of potential increases in complications and mortality as compared to DCD alone.

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
Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Annals of Thoracic Surgery 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
1235
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: The mission of The Annals of Thoracic Surgery is to promote scholarship in cardiothoracic surgery patient care, clinical practice, research, education, and policy. As the official journal of two of the largest American associations in its specialty, this leading monthly enjoys outstanding editorial leadership and maintains rigorous selection standards. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery features: • Full-length original articles on clinical advances, current surgical methods, and controversial topics and techniques • New Technology articles • Case reports • "How-to-do-it" features • Reviews of current literature • Supplements on symposia • Commentary pieces and correspondence • CME • Online-only case reports, "how-to-do-its", and images in cardiothoracic surgery. An authoritative, clinically oriented, comprehensive resource, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery is committed to providing a place for all thoracic surgeons to relate experiences which will help improve patient care.
期刊最新文献
Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in Donation after Cardiac and Brain Death Donation. Does High Standard Uptake Value on Positron Emission Tomography Preclude Sublobar Resection in Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer ≤2cm? Sequential Grafting of the Left Internal Thoracic Artery to the Left Anterior Descending Artery and Graft Failure. Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Robotic-assisted versus Conventional Mitral Valve Repair: A National Analysis. Fragmented care, Commission on Cancer Accreditation and Overall Survival in Patients Receiving Surgery and Chemotherapy for Lung Cancer.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1