Remote ex vivo lung perfusion at a centralized evaluation facility

In the US, only 23% of lungs offered for transplantation are transplanted. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows for evaluation of additional donor lungs; its adoption has been limited by resources and expertise. Dedicated facilities with a centralized lung evaluation system (CLES) could expand acces...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of heart and lung transplantation 2022-12, Vol.41 (12), p.1700-1711
Hauptverfasser: Mallea, Jorge M., Hartwig, Matthew G., Keller, Cesar A., Kon, Zachary, III, Richard N. Pierson, Erasmus, David B., Roberts, Michael, Patzlaff, Natalie E., Johnson, Dana, Sanchez, Pablo G., D'Cunha, Jonathan, Brown, A. Whitney, Dilling, Daniel F., McCurry, Kenneth
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1711
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1700
container_title The Journal of heart and lung transplantation
container_volume 41
creator Mallea, Jorge M.
Hartwig, Matthew G.
Keller, Cesar A.
Kon, Zachary
III, Richard N. Pierson
Erasmus, David B.
Roberts, Michael
Patzlaff, Natalie E.
Johnson, Dana
Sanchez, Pablo G.
D'Cunha, Jonathan
Brown, A. Whitney
Dilling, Daniel F.
McCurry, Kenneth
description In the US, only 23% of lungs offered for transplantation are transplanted. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows for evaluation of additional donor lungs; its adoption has been limited by resources and expertise. Dedicated facilities with a centralized lung evaluation system (CLES) could expand access to EVLP. In this unblinded, nonrandomized, traditional feasibility study, 7 US transplant centers referred lungs declined for standard transplantation to a dedicated EVLP facility, which utilized a CLES. EVLP was remotely monitored by the transplant teams. CLES lungs were matched with contemporaneous conventional static cold-preserved controls at each center. A total of 115 recipients were enrolled, and 66 received allografts from 63 donors after EVLP at the dedicated CLES facility. Forty-nine contemporaneous patients served as controls. Primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours (PGD3-72 hours) was higher in the CLES group with 16 (24%) vs 2 (4%) in the control (common RD 95% CI, 0.07-0.32; p = 0.0009). All recipients survived to 30 days and 1-year survival was similar for both groups (92% controls vs 89% CLES; common RD 95% CI, -0.14-0.08; p = 0.58). Total preservation time, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, and time to first extubation were longer in the CLES group. Remote ex vivo perfusion of lung allografts declined for conventional transplantation at a dedicated CLES facility is feasible and resulted in additional transplants. Recipients of allografts assessed with a CLES had a higher rate of PGD3-72 hours, but similar 30-day and 1-year outcomes compared to conventional lung recipients. (NCT02234128)
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.healun.2022.09.006
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2725198011</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1053249822021180</els_id><sourcerecordid>2725198011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-9278e22a2e1b1bf712ec4c08dcff8c2b5ffb110cfe806d24c7c390ed881f38db3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-A5EcvSTOTppmcxG0-AUFQfS8bDazuiVN6m4SrL_eLa0ePc3AvB_Mw9g5h4QDn10tkw9Sdd8kCIgJFAnA7ICNeZblccp5fhh2yNIYp4UYsRPvlwCAaYbHbJTOEIsUizG7faFV21FEX9FghzYKge_RmpzpvW2bSHWRijQ1nVO1_aYqoiF0qm57M0rb2nabU3ZkVO3pbD8n7O3-7nX-GC-eH57mN4tYh7ouLjAXhKiQeMlLk3MkPdUgKm2M0FhmxpScgzYkYFbhVOc6LYAqIbhJRVWmE3a5y1279rMn38mV9ZrqWjXU9l5ijhkvBHAepNOdVLvWe0dGrp1dKbeRHOSWnlzKHT25pSehkIFesF3sG_pyRdWf6RdXEFzvBBT-HCw56bWlRlNlHelOVq39v-EHzB6DHg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2725198011</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Remote ex vivo lung perfusion at a centralized evaluation facility</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Mallea, Jorge M. ; Hartwig, Matthew G. ; Keller, Cesar A. ; Kon, Zachary ; III, Richard N. Pierson ; Erasmus, David B. ; Roberts, Michael ; Patzlaff, Natalie E. ; Johnson, Dana ; Sanchez, Pablo G. ; D'Cunha, Jonathan ; Brown, A. Whitney ; Dilling, Daniel F. ; McCurry, Kenneth</creator><creatorcontrib>Mallea, Jorge M. ; Hartwig, Matthew G. ; Keller, Cesar A. ; Kon, Zachary ; III, Richard N. Pierson ; Erasmus, David B. ; Roberts, Michael ; Patzlaff, Natalie E. ; Johnson, Dana ; Sanchez, Pablo G. ; D'Cunha, Jonathan ; Brown, A. Whitney ; Dilling, Daniel F. ; McCurry, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><description>In the US, only 23% of lungs offered for transplantation are transplanted. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows for evaluation of additional donor lungs; its adoption has been limited by resources and expertise. Dedicated facilities with a centralized lung evaluation system (CLES) could expand access to EVLP. In this unblinded, nonrandomized, traditional feasibility study, 7 US transplant centers referred lungs declined for standard transplantation to a dedicated EVLP facility, which utilized a CLES. EVLP was remotely monitored by the transplant teams. CLES lungs were matched with contemporaneous conventional static cold-preserved controls at each center. A total of 115 recipients were enrolled, and 66 received allografts from 63 donors after EVLP at the dedicated CLES facility. Forty-nine contemporaneous patients served as controls. Primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours (PGD3-72 hours) was higher in the CLES group with 16 (24%) vs 2 (4%) in the control (common RD 95% CI, 0.07-0.32; p = 0.0009). All recipients survived to 30 days and 1-year survival was similar for both groups (92% controls vs 89% CLES; common RD 95% CI, -0.14-0.08; p = 0.58). Total preservation time, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, and time to first extubation were longer in the CLES group. Remote ex vivo perfusion of lung allografts declined for conventional transplantation at a dedicated CLES facility is feasible and resulted in additional transplants. Recipients of allografts assessed with a CLES had a higher rate of PGD3-72 hours, but similar 30-day and 1-year outcomes compared to conventional lung recipients. (NCT02234128)</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-2498</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-3117</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2022.09.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36229329</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>cold ischemia time ; donation after cardiac death ; EVLP ; Extracorporeal Circulation ; Feasibility Studies ; Humans ; Lung ; lung transplant ; Lung Transplantation - methods ; Organ Preservation - methods ; Perfusion - methods ; PGD3 ; Tissue Donors</subject><ispartof>The Journal of heart and lung transplantation, 2022-12, Vol.41 (12), p.1700-1711</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-9278e22a2e1b1bf712ec4c08dcff8c2b5ffb110cfe806d24c7c390ed881f38db3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-9278e22a2e1b1bf712ec4c08dcff8c2b5ffb110cfe806d24c7c390ed881f38db3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3764-4590 ; 0000-0003-4962-8838 ; 0000-0001-8393-2791 ; 0000-0002-7127-598X ; 0000-0002-9723-510X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053249822021180$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36229329$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mallea, Jorge M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartwig, Matthew G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keller, Cesar A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kon, Zachary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>III, Richard N. Pierson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erasmus, David B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patzlaff, Natalie E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Dana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanchez, Pablo G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Cunha, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, A. Whitney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dilling, Daniel F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCurry, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><title>Remote ex vivo lung perfusion at a centralized evaluation facility</title><title>The Journal of heart and lung transplantation</title><addtitle>J Heart Lung Transplant</addtitle><description>In the US, only 23% of lungs offered for transplantation are transplanted. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows for evaluation of additional donor lungs; its adoption has been limited by resources and expertise. Dedicated facilities with a centralized lung evaluation system (CLES) could expand access to EVLP. In this unblinded, nonrandomized, traditional feasibility study, 7 US transplant centers referred lungs declined for standard transplantation to a dedicated EVLP facility, which utilized a CLES. EVLP was remotely monitored by the transplant teams. CLES lungs were matched with contemporaneous conventional static cold-preserved controls at each center. A total of 115 recipients were enrolled, and 66 received allografts from 63 donors after EVLP at the dedicated CLES facility. Forty-nine contemporaneous patients served as controls. Primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours (PGD3-72 hours) was higher in the CLES group with 16 (24%) vs 2 (4%) in the control (common RD 95% CI, 0.07-0.32; p = 0.0009). All recipients survived to 30 days and 1-year survival was similar for both groups (92% controls vs 89% CLES; common RD 95% CI, -0.14-0.08; p = 0.58). Total preservation time, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, and time to first extubation were longer in the CLES group. Remote ex vivo perfusion of lung allografts declined for conventional transplantation at a dedicated CLES facility is feasible and resulted in additional transplants. Recipients of allografts assessed with a CLES had a higher rate of PGD3-72 hours, but similar 30-day and 1-year outcomes compared to conventional lung recipients. (NCT02234128)</description><subject>cold ischemia time</subject><subject>donation after cardiac death</subject><subject>EVLP</subject><subject>Extracorporeal Circulation</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lung</subject><subject>lung transplant</subject><subject>Lung Transplantation - methods</subject><subject>Organ Preservation - methods</subject><subject>Perfusion - methods</subject><subject>PGD3</subject><subject>Tissue Donors</subject><issn>1053-2498</issn><issn>1557-3117</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-A5EcvSTOTppmcxG0-AUFQfS8bDazuiVN6m4SrL_eLa0ePc3AvB_Mw9g5h4QDn10tkw9Sdd8kCIgJFAnA7ICNeZblccp5fhh2yNIYp4UYsRPvlwCAaYbHbJTOEIsUizG7faFV21FEX9FghzYKge_RmpzpvW2bSHWRijQ1nVO1_aYqoiF0qm57M0rb2nabU3ZkVO3pbD8n7O3-7nX-GC-eH57mN4tYh7ouLjAXhKiQeMlLk3MkPdUgKm2M0FhmxpScgzYkYFbhVOc6LYAqIbhJRVWmE3a5y1279rMn38mV9ZrqWjXU9l5ijhkvBHAepNOdVLvWe0dGrp1dKbeRHOSWnlzKHT25pSehkIFesF3sG_pyRdWf6RdXEFzvBBT-HCw56bWlRlNlHelOVq39v-EHzB6DHg</recordid><startdate>202212</startdate><enddate>202212</enddate><creator>Mallea, Jorge M.</creator><creator>Hartwig, Matthew G.</creator><creator>Keller, Cesar A.</creator><creator>Kon, Zachary</creator><creator>III, Richard N. Pierson</creator><creator>Erasmus, David B.</creator><creator>Roberts, Michael</creator><creator>Patzlaff, Natalie E.</creator><creator>Johnson, Dana</creator><creator>Sanchez, Pablo G.</creator><creator>D'Cunha, Jonathan</creator><creator>Brown, A. Whitney</creator><creator>Dilling, Daniel F.</creator><creator>McCurry, Kenneth</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3764-4590</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4962-8838</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8393-2791</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-598X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9723-510X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202212</creationdate><title>Remote ex vivo lung perfusion at a centralized evaluation facility</title><author>Mallea, Jorge M. ; Hartwig, Matthew G. ; Keller, Cesar A. ; Kon, Zachary ; III, Richard N. Pierson ; Erasmus, David B. ; Roberts, Michael ; Patzlaff, Natalie E. ; Johnson, Dana ; Sanchez, Pablo G. ; D'Cunha, Jonathan ; Brown, A. Whitney ; Dilling, Daniel F. ; McCurry, Kenneth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-9278e22a2e1b1bf712ec4c08dcff8c2b5ffb110cfe806d24c7c390ed881f38db3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>cold ischemia time</topic><topic>donation after cardiac death</topic><topic>EVLP</topic><topic>Extracorporeal Circulation</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lung</topic><topic>lung transplant</topic><topic>Lung Transplantation - methods</topic><topic>Organ Preservation - methods</topic><topic>Perfusion - methods</topic><topic>PGD3</topic><topic>Tissue Donors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mallea, Jorge M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartwig, Matthew G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keller, Cesar A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kon, Zachary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>III, Richard N. Pierson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erasmus, David B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patzlaff, Natalie E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Dana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanchez, Pablo G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Cunha, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, A. Whitney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dilling, Daniel F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCurry, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of heart and lung transplantation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mallea, Jorge M.</au><au>Hartwig, Matthew G.</au><au>Keller, Cesar A.</au><au>Kon, Zachary</au><au>III, Richard N. Pierson</au><au>Erasmus, David B.</au><au>Roberts, Michael</au><au>Patzlaff, Natalie E.</au><au>Johnson, Dana</au><au>Sanchez, Pablo G.</au><au>D'Cunha, Jonathan</au><au>Brown, A. Whitney</au><au>Dilling, Daniel F.</au><au>McCurry, Kenneth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Remote ex vivo lung perfusion at a centralized evaluation facility</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of heart and lung transplantation</jtitle><addtitle>J Heart Lung Transplant</addtitle><date>2022-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1700</spage><epage>1711</epage><pages>1700-1711</pages><issn>1053-2498</issn><eissn>1557-3117</eissn><abstract>In the US, only 23% of lungs offered for transplantation are transplanted. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows for evaluation of additional donor lungs; its adoption has been limited by resources and expertise. Dedicated facilities with a centralized lung evaluation system (CLES) could expand access to EVLP. In this unblinded, nonrandomized, traditional feasibility study, 7 US transplant centers referred lungs declined for standard transplantation to a dedicated EVLP facility, which utilized a CLES. EVLP was remotely monitored by the transplant teams. CLES lungs were matched with contemporaneous conventional static cold-preserved controls at each center. A total of 115 recipients were enrolled, and 66 received allografts from 63 donors after EVLP at the dedicated CLES facility. Forty-nine contemporaneous patients served as controls. Primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours (PGD3-72 hours) was higher in the CLES group with 16 (24%) vs 2 (4%) in the control (common RD 95% CI, 0.07-0.32; p = 0.0009). All recipients survived to 30 days and 1-year survival was similar for both groups (92% controls vs 89% CLES; common RD 95% CI, -0.14-0.08; p = 0.58). Total preservation time, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, and time to first extubation were longer in the CLES group. Remote ex vivo perfusion of lung allografts declined for conventional transplantation at a dedicated CLES facility is feasible and resulted in additional transplants. Recipients of allografts assessed with a CLES had a higher rate of PGD3-72 hours, but similar 30-day and 1-year outcomes compared to conventional lung recipients. (NCT02234128)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>36229329</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.healun.2022.09.006</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3764-4590</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4962-8838</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8393-2791</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-598X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9723-510X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-2498
ispartof The Journal of heart and lung transplantation, 2022-12, Vol.41 (12), p.1700-1711
issn 1053-2498
1557-3117
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2725198011
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects cold ischemia time
donation after cardiac death
EVLP
Extracorporeal Circulation
Feasibility Studies
Humans
Lung
lung transplant
Lung Transplantation - methods
Organ Preservation - methods
Perfusion - methods
PGD3
Tissue Donors
title Remote ex vivo lung perfusion at a centralized evaluation facility
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T16%3A21%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Remote%20ex%20vivo%20lung%20perfusion%20at%20a%20centralized%20evaluation%20facility&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20heart%20and%20lung%20transplantation&rft.au=Mallea,%20Jorge%20M.&rft.date=2022-12&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1700&rft.epage=1711&rft.pages=1700-1711&rft.issn=1053-2498&rft.eissn=1557-3117&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.healun.2022.09.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2725198011%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2725198011&rft_id=info:pmid/36229329&rft_els_id=S1053249822021180&rfr_iscdi=true