4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

A decade of living lobar lung transplantation: Recipient outcomes

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.07.042

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Living lobar lung transplantation was developed as a procedure for patients considered too ill to await cadaveric transplantation. Methods: One hundred twenty-eight living lobar lung transplantations were performed in 123 patients between 1993 and 2003. Eighty-four patients were adults (age, 27 +/- 7.7 years), and 39 were pediatric patients (age, 13.9 +/- 2.9 years). Results: The primary indication for transplantation was cystic fibrosis (84%). At the time of transplantation, 67.5% of patients were hospitalized, and 17.9% were intubated. One-, 3-, and 5-year actuarial survival among living lobar recipients was 70%, 54%, and 45%, respectively. There was no difference in actuarial survival between adult and pediatric living lobar recipients (P = .65). There were 63 deaths among living lobar recipients, with infection being the predominant cause (53.4%), followed by obliterative bronchiolitis (12.7%) and primary graft dysfunction (7.9%). The overall incidence of acute rejection was 0.8 episodes per patient. Seventy-eight percent of rejection episodes were unilateral. Age, sex, indication, donor relationship, preoperative hospitalization status, use of preoperative steroids, and HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DR typing did not influence survival. However, patients on ventilators preoperatively had significantly worse outcomes (odds ratio, 3.06, P = .03; Kaplan-Meier P = .002), and those undergoing retransplantation had an increased risk of death (odds ratio, 2.50). Conclusion: These results support the continued use of living lobar lung transplantation in patients deemed unable to await a cadaveric transplantation. We consider patients undergoing retransplantations and intubated patients to be at significantly high risk because of the poor outcomes in these populations.

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