4.5 Article

Significance of Lung Weight in Cellular Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 260, Issue -, Pages 190-199

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.11.069

Keywords

Pulmonary edema; Ischemia reperfusion injury

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study findings suggest that lung weight at donor hospital, lung weight change during EVLP, and lung weight at 2 h of EVLP may serve as predictors of P/F ratio and transplant suitability in cellular EVLP.
Background: Currently, pulmonary edema is evaluated via surgical inspection and palpation in donor lungs, and there is no quantitative standard diagnostic tool for evaluating pul-monary edema in donor procurement and ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP). The purpose of this study was to investigate the significance of lung weight at the donor hospital and lung weight during EVLP as a complementary parameter of transplant suitability in EVLP. Materials and methods: Twenty-one of rejected human lungs were perfused in cellular EVLP. Transplant suitability was evaluated at 2 h as per standard criteria of Lund-protocol EVLP. Results: Lung weight at donor hospital was significantly correlated with PaO2/FiO(2) (P/F) ratio in EVLP (r =-0.44). There was a significant difference in lung weight at donor hospital between suitable cases (n = 13) and nonsuitable cases (n = 8). Light lung group (lung weight at donor hospital < 1280 g; n = 17) was suitable for transplant in 76%, whereas none of heavy lung group (lung weight at donor hospital > 1280 g; n = 4) was suitable (P < 0.05). Lung weight at 2 h and lung weight change during EVLP were significantly associated with P/F ratio at 2 h and transplant suitability (P < 0.05, each). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that lung weight at donor hospital, lung weight change, and lung weight at 2 h of EVLP might be a predictor of P/F ratio and transplant suitability in cellular EVLP. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available