No abstract

Summary Lung transplantation is a life‐saving procedure limited by donor's availability. Lung reconditioning by ex vivo lung perfusion represents a tool to expand the donor pool. In this study, we describe our experience with the OCS™ Lung to assess and recondition extended criteria lungs. From January 2014 to October 2016, of 86 on‐site donors evaluated, eight lungs have been identified as potentially treatable with OCS™ Lung. We analyzed data from these donors and the recipient outcomes after transplantation. All donor lungs improved during OCS perfusion in particular regarding the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (from 340 mmHg in donor to 537 mmHg in OCS) leading to lung transplantation in all cases. Concerning postoperative results, primary graft dysfunction score 3 at 72 h was observed in one patient, while median mechanical ventilation time, ICU, and hospital stay were 60 h, 14 and 36 days respectively. One in‐hospital death was recorded (12.5%), while other two patients died during follow‐up leading to 1‐year survival of 62.5%. The remaining five patients are alive and in good conditions. This case series demonstrates the feasibility and value of lung reconditioning with the OCS™ Lung; a prospective trial is underway to validate its role to safely increase the number of donor lungs.

In our experience, despite the higher need for intraoperative transfusions, lung transplantation performed with ECMO support is comparable to the off-pump procedure as to short-term survival and outcomes.

In rapidly deteriorating patients awaiting lung transplantation (LT), supportive strategies are only temporary and urgent lung transplant (ULT) remains the last option. The few publications on this topic report conflicting results. According to the Italian national program, patients on mechanical ventilation and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be included in urgent list. We reviewed our experience from January 2012 to December 2014 with ULT and elective lung transplantation (ELT), focusing on outcomes. In the study period, 16 patients received ULT, while 51 received ELT. Among ULT, 1 patient (5.8%) died in waiting list (WL) while 16 patients underwent LT with a median WL time of 6 days. ELT WL mortality was 13.5%, and median WL time 368 days. In-hospital mortality was lower in ELT group (5.8% vs 37.5%, P < .01), while the other postoperative outcomes were not significantly different. For ULT patients, the highest impact risk factors for in-hospital mortality were pretransplant plasma transfusion, recipient Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization, and high level of reactive C-protein and lactic acid. A ULT program with an accurate recipient selection allows earlier transplantation, reducing WL mortality, with acceptable outcomes, although with a higher in-hospital mortality. Larger studies are needed to validate our results.

Background: In rapidly lung deteriorating patients, urgent lung transplantation (ULT) seems the only definitive therapy. Few publications on this topic report conflicting results, putting a word of caution about ULT programs. Methods: A national ULT program was introduced in 2010: patients on mechanical support may be transplanted with the first available graft. We reviewed the experience of three national center, focusing on post-operative outcomes after ULT. Results: Ten patients (17.5%) died awaiting transplantation, while 47 underwent LT with a median urgent waiting list time of 6 days. Pre-operatively, 4.3% of patients were supported only by mechanical ventilation (MV), 55.3% by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and the remaining 40.4% by both. The main indication was cystic fibrosis (64%). Median recipient lung allocation score was 72. In-hospital mortality was 19%. MV and ECMO median duration of 7 and 3 days, respectively while intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay were 20 and 46 days, respectively. At long-term, 1-and 3-year survival rate were 74% and 70%, respectively. Highly impact risk factors for in-hospital mortality were both presence and duration of preoperative veno-arterial ECMO and pre-transplant C-reactive protein level. Conclusions: ULT program allows transplantation in a significant percentage of patients with acceptable results. Pre-operative recipient selection is mandatory to improve clinical outcomes.