2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Lung Transplant Outcome from Selected Older Donors (≥70 Y) Equals Younger Donors (<70 Y) : A Propensity-matched Analysis ‡

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective: To describe our experience with lung transplantation (LTx) from donors ≥70 years and compare short and long-term outcomes to a propensity-matched cohort of donors <70 years. Background: Although extended-criteria donors have been widely used to enlarge the donor pool, the experience with LTx from older donors (≥70 years) remains limited. Methods: All single-center bilateral LTx between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Matching (1:1) was performed for the donor (type, sex, smoking history, x-ray abnormalities, partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, and time on ventilator) and recipient characteristics (age, sex, LTx indication, perioperative extracorporeal life support, and cytomegalovirus mismatch). Primary graft dysfunction grade-3, 5-year patient, and chronic lung allograft dysfunction-free survival were analyzed. Results: Out of 647 bilateral LTx, 69 were performed from donors ≥70 years. The mean age in the older donor cohort was 74 years (range: 70–84 years) versus 49 years (range: 12–69 years) in the matched younger group. No significant differences were observed in the length of ventilatory support, intensive care unit, or hospital stay. Primary graft dysfunction-3 was 26% in the older group versus 29% in younger donor recipients (P = 0.85). Reintervention rate was comparable (29% vs 16%; P = 0.10). Follow-up bronchoscopy revealed no difference in bronchial anastomotic complications (P = 1.00). Five-year patient and chronic lung allograft dysfunction-free survivals were 73.6% versus 73.1% (P = 0.72) and 51.5% versus 59.2% (P = 0.41), respectively. Conclusions: LTx from selected donors ≥70 years is feasible and safe, yielding comparable short and long-term outcomes in a propensity-matched analysis with younger donors (<70 years).

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The frailty syndrome: definition and natural history.

          This article reviews the current state of knowledge regarding the epidemiology of frailty by focusing on 6 specific areas: (1) clinical definitions of frailty, (2) evidence of frailty as a medical syndrome, (3) prevalence and incidence of frailty by age, gender, race, and ethnicity, (4) transitions between discrete frailty states, (5) natural history of manifestations of frailty criteria, and (6) behavior modifications as precursors to the development of clinical frailty. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Chronic lung allograft dysfunction: Definition, diagnostic criteria, and approaches to treatment―A consensus report from the Pulmonary Council of the ISHLT

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A consensus document for the selection of lung transplant candidates: 2014--an update from the Pulmonary Transplantation Council of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.

              The appropriate selection of lung transplant recipients is an important determinant of outcomes. This consensus document is an update of the recipient selection guidelines published in 2006. The Pulmonary Council of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) organized a Writing Committee of international experts to provide consensus opinion regarding the appropriate timing of referral and listing of candidates for lung transplantation. A comprehensive search of the medical literature was conducted with the assistance of a medical librarian. Writing Committee members were assigned specific topics to research and discuss. The Chairs of the Writing Committee were responsible for evaluating the completeness of the literature search, providing editorial support for the manuscript, and organizing group discussions regarding its content. The consensus document makes specific recommendations regarding the timing of referral and of listing for lung transplantation. These recommendations include discussions not present in previous ISHLT guidelines, including lung allocation scores, bridging to transplant with mechanical circulatory and ventilator support, and expanded indications for lung transplantation. In the absence of high-grade evidence to support decision making, these consensus guidelines remain part of a continuum of expert opinion based on available studies and personal experience. Some positions are immutable. Although transplant is rightly a treatment of last resort for end-stage lung disease, early referral allows proper evaluation and thorough patient education. Subsequent waiting list activation implies a tacit agreement that transplant offers a significant individual survival advantage. It is both the challenge and the responsibility of the transplant community globally to ensure organ allocation maximizes the potential benefits of a scarce resource, thereby achieving that advantage.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annals of Surgery
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0003-4932
                2023
                February 3 2023
                : Publish Ahead of Print
                Article
                10.1097/SLA.0000000000005813
                4b8d01f5-79a2-4b6f-93bc-f0ff1d5a2e63
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article