Oscillometry in Stable Single and Double Lung Allograft Recipients Transplanted for Interstitial Lung Disease: Results of a Multi-Center Australian Study.

Peak spirometry after single lung transplantation (SLTx) for interstitial lung disease (ILD) is lower than after double lung transplantation (DLTx), however the pathophysiologic mechanisms are unclear. We aim to assess respiratory mechanics in SLTx and DLTx for ILD using oscillometry. Spirometry and oscillometry (tremoflo® C-100) were performed in stable SLTx and DLTx recipients in a multi-center study. Resistance (R5, R5-19) and reactance (X5) were compared between LTx recipient groups, matched by age and gender. A model of respiratory impedance using ILD and DLTx data was performed. In total, 45 stable LTx recipients were recruited (SLTx n = 23, DLTx n = 22; males: 87.0% vs. 77.3%; median age 63.0 vs. 63.0 years). Spirometry was significantly lower after SLTx compared with DLTx: %-predicted mean (SD) FEV1 [70.0 (14.5) vs. 93.5 (26.0)%]; FVC [70.5 (16.8) vs. 90.7 (12.8)%], p < 0.01. R5 and R5-19 were similar between groups (p = 0.94 and p = 0.11, respectively) yet X5 was significantly worse after SLTx: median (IQR) X5 [-1.88 (-2.89 to -1.39) vs. -1.22 (-1.87 to -0.86)] cmH2O.s/L], p < 0.01. R5 and X5 measurements from the model were congruent with measurements in SLTx recipients. The similarities in resistance, yet differences in spirometry and reactance between both transplant groups suggest the important contribution of elastic properties to the pathophysiology. Oscillometry may provide further insight into the physiological changes occurring post-LTx.

A catalogue of tools and variables from crisis and routine care to support decision-making about allocation of intensive care beds and ventilator treatment during pandemics: Scoping review.

PURPOSE: This scoping review sought to identify objective factors to assist clinicians and policy-makers in making consistent, objective and ethically sound decisions about resource allocation when healthcare rationing is inevitable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of guidelines and tools used in ICUs, hospital wards and emergency departments on how to best allocate intensive care beds and ventilators either during routine care or developed during previous epidemics, and association with patient outcomes during and after hospitalisation. RESULTS: Eighty publications from 20 countries reporting accuracy or validity of prognostic tools/algorithms, or significant correlation between prognostic variables and clinical outcomes met our eligibility criteria: twelve pandemic guidelines/triage protocols/consensus statements, twenty-two pandemic algorithms, and 46 prognostic tools/variables from non-crisis situations. Prognostic indicators presented here can be combined to create locally-relevant triage algorithms for clinicians and policy makers deciding about allocation of ICU beds and ventilators during a pandemic. No consensus was found on the ethical issues to incorporate in the decision to admit or triage out of intensive care. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a unique reference intended as a discussion starter for clinicians and policy makers to consider formalising an objective a locally-relevant triage consensus document that enhances confidence in decision-making during healthcare rationing of critical care and ventilator resources.