4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Risk factors for reperfusion injury after lung transplantation

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 557-563

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-006-0096-7

关键词

graft; human; ischemia-reperfusion injury; organ transplantation; primary graft failure; pulmonary hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the influence of recipient's and donor's factors as well as surgical events on the occurrence of reperfusion injury after lung transplantation. Design and setting: Retrospective study in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital. Methods: We collected data on 60 lung transplantation donor/recipient pairs from June 1993 to May 2001, and compared the demographic, peri- and postoperative variables of patients who experienced reperfusion injury (35%) and those who did not. Results: The occurrence of high systolic pulmonary pressure immediately after transplantation and/or its persistence during the first 48 h after surgery was associated with reperfusion injury, independently of preoperative values. Reperfusion injury was associated with difficult hemostasis during transplantation (p = 0.03). Patients with reperfusion injury were more likely to require the administration of catecholamine during the first 48 h after surgery (p = 0.014). The extubation was delayed ( p = 0.03) and the relative odds of ICU mortality were significantly greater (OR 4.8, 95% CI: 1.06, 21.8) in patients with reperfusion injury. Our analysis confirmed that preexisting pulmonary hypertension increased the incidence of reperfusion injury (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Difficulties in perioperative hemostasis were associated with reperfusion injury. Occurrence of reperfusion injury was associated with postoperative systolic pulmonary hypertension, longer mechanical ventilation and higher mortality. Whether early recognition and treatment of pulmonary hypertension during transplantation can prevent the occurrence of reperfusion injury needs to be investigated.

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

4.6
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