A comparison of outcomes after lung transplantation between European and North American centers

Survival outcomes following urgent lung transplantation in France and the USA

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.

The Year in Cardiothoracic Transplant Anesthesia: Selected Highlights From 2022 Part I: Lung Transplantation

These highlights focus on the research in lung transplantation (LTX) that was published in 2022 and includes the assessment and optimization of candidates for LTX, donor optimization, the use of organs from donation after circulatory death, and outcomes when using marginal or novel donors; recipient factors affecting LTX, including age, disease, the use of extracorporeal life support; and special situations, such as coronavirus disease2019, pediatric LTX, and retransplantation. The remainder of the article focuses on the perioperative management of LTX, including the perioperative risk factors for acute renal failure (acute kidney injury); the incidence and management of phrenic nerve injury, delirium, and pain; and the postoperative management of hyperammonemia, early postoperative infections, and the use of donor-derived cell-free DNA to detect rejection.

Mitigating Health Disparities in Transplantation Requires Equity, Not Equality

Despite decades of research and evidence-based mitigation strategies, disparities in access to transplantation persist for all organ types and in all stages of the transplant process. Although some strategies have shown promise for alleviating disparities, others have fallen short of the equity goal by providing the same tools and resources to all rather than tailoring the tools and resources to one's circumstances. Innovative solutions that engage all stakeholders are needed to achieve equity regardless of race, sex, age, socioeconomic status, or geography. Mitigation of disparities is paramount to ensure fair and equitable access for those with end-stage disease and to preserve the trust of the public, upon whom we rely for their willingness to donate organs. In this overview, we present a summary of recent literature demonstrating persistent disparities by stage in the transplant process, along with policies and interventions that have been implemented to combat these disparities and hypotheses for why some strategies have been more effective than others. We conclude with future directions that have been proposed by experts in the field and how these suggested strategies may help us finally arrive at equity in transplantation.