4.5 Article

Initial Experience With Lung Donation After Cardiocirculatory Death in Canada

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 753-758

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2009.05.009

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) has the potential to alleviate some of the shortage of suitable lungs for transplantation. Only limited data describe Outcomes after DCD lung transplantation. This stud), describes the early and intermediate Outcomes after DCD lung transplantation in Canada. Methods: Data were collected from donors and recipients involved in DCD lung transplantations between June 2006 and December 2008. Described are the lung DCD protocol, donor characteristics, and the occurrence of post-transplant events including primary graft dysfunction (PGD), bronchial complications, acute rejection (AR), bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), and survival. Results: Successful multiorgan controlled DCD increased from 4 donors in 2006 to 26 in 2008. Utilization rates of lungs among DCD donors were 0% in 2006, 11% in 2007, and 27% in 2008. The lung transplant team evaluated 13 DCD donors on site, and lungs from 9 donors were ultimately used for 10 recipients. The 30-day mortality was 0%. Severe PGD requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation occurred in I patient. Median intensive care unit stay was 3.5 days (range, 2-21 days). Hospital stay was 25 days (range, 9-47 days). AR occurred in 2 patients. No early BOS has developed. Nine (90%) patients are alive at a median of 270 days (range, 47-798 days) with good performance status and lung function. One patient died of sepsis 17 months after transplantation. Conclusion: DCD has steadily increased in Canada since 2006. The use of controlled DCD lungs for transplantation is associated with very acceptable early and intermediate clinical outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009;28:753-8. Copyright (C) 2009 by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据