Impact of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Bridging Duration on Lung Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize the association between venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) bridging duration and outcomes in patients listed for lung transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database to identify adults (≥18 years old) who were listed for lung transplantation between 2016-2020 and who were bridged with VV-ECMO. Patients were then stratified into groups, determined by risk inflection points, depending on the amount of time spent on pre-transplant ECMO: Group 1 (≤5 days), Group 2 (6-10 days), Group 3 (11-20 days), and Group 4 (>20 days). Waitlist survival between groups was analyzed using Fine-Gray competing risk models. Post-transplant survival was compared using Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 566 eligible VV-ECMO bridge-to-lung-transplant patients (median age=54, 49% male), 174 (31%), 124 (22%), 130 (23%), and 138 (24%) were categorized as Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Overall, median duration of VV-ECMO was 10 days (range=1-211) and 178 patients (31%) died on the waitlist. In the Fine-Gray model, compared to Group 1, patients bridged with longer ECMO durations in Groups 2 (SHR=2.95, 95%CI: 1.63-5.35), 3 (SHR=3.96, 95%CI: 2.36-6.63), and 4 (SHR=4.33, 95%CI: 2.59-7.22, all p<0.001), were more likely to die on the waitlist. Of 388 patients receiving a transplant, pre-transplant ECMO duration was not associated with one-year survival in Cox regression. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged ECMO bridging duration was associated with worse waitlist mortality but did not impact post-lung transplant survival. Prioritization of very early transplantation may improve waitlist outcomes in this population.

Debunking the July Effect in lung transplantation recipients.

Objective: The "July Effect" is a theory that the influx of trainees from July to September negatively impacts patient outcomes. We aimed to study this theoretical phenomenon in lung transplant recipients given the highly technical nature of thoracic procedures. Methods: Adult lung transplant hospitalizations were identified within the National Inpatient Sample (2005-2020). Recipients were categorized as academic Q1 (July to September) or Q2-Q4 (October to June). In-hospital mortality, operator-driven complications (pneumothorax, dehiscence including wound dehiscence, bronchial anastomosis, and others, and vocal cord/diaphragm paralysis, all 3 treated as a composite outcome), length of stay, and inflation-adjusted hospitalization charges were compared between both groups. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between academic quarter and in-hospital mortality and operator-driven complications. The models were adjusted for recipient demographics and transplant characteristics. Subgroup analysis was performed between academic and nonacademic hospitals. Results: Of 30,788 lung transplants, 7838 occurred in Q1 and 22,950 occurred in Q2-Q4. Recipient demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Dehiscence (n = 922, 4% vs n = 236, 3%), post-transplant cardiac arrest (n = 532, 2% vs n = 113, 1%), and pulmonary embolism (n = 712, 3% vs n = 164, 2%) were more common in Q2-Q4 versus Q1 recipients (all P < .05). Other operator-driven complications, in-hospital mortality, and resource use were similar between groups (P > .05). These inferences remained unchanged in adjusted analyses and on subgroup analyses of academic versus nonacademic hospitals. Conclusions: The "July Effect" is not evident in US lung transplantation recipient outcomes during the transplant hospitalization. This suggests that current institutional monitoring systems for trainees across multiple specialties, including surgery, anesthesia, critical care, nursing, and others, are robust.

Bigger pies, bigger slices: Increased hospitalization costs for lung transplantation recipients in the non-donation service area allocation era.

OBJECTIVE: On November 24, 2017, lung transplant allocation switched from donation service area to a 250-nautical mile radius policy to improve equity in access to lung transplantation. Given the growing consideration of healthcare costs, we evaluated changes in hospitalization costs after this policy change. METHODS: Lung transplant hospitalizations were identified within the National Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2020. Recipients were categorized as donation service area era (August 2015 to October 2017) or non-donation service area era (December 2017 to February 2020). Median total hospitalization costs (inflation adjusted) were compared by era nationally and regionally. Multivariable generalized linear regression was performed to determine if the removal of the donation service area was associated with total hospitalization costs. The model was adjusted for recipient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hospitalization region, transplant type (single, double), and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ex vivo lung perfusion, and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: We analyzed 12,985 lung transplant recipients (median age of 61 years, 66% were male): 7070 in the donation service area era and 5915 in the non-donation service area era. Demographics were not different between recipients in both eras. Non-donation service area era recipients had greater extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use, mechanical ventilation (<24 hours), and longer length of stay than donation service area era recipients. Median total hospitalization costs for non-donation service area versus donation service area era recipients increased by $24,198 ($157,964 vs $182,162, percentage change = 15.32%, P < .001). Median costs increased in East North Central ($42,281) and Mountain ($35,521) regions (both P < .01). After adjustment, median costs for non-donation service area versus donation service area era recipients still increased ($19,168, 95% CI, 145-38,191, P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization costs for lung transplant hospitalizations have increased from 2015 to 2020. The transition from donation service area-based allocation to the non-donation service area system may have contributed to this increase after 2017 by increasing access to transplant for sicker recipients.

Uptake and 1-year outcomes of lung transplantation for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: End-stage lung disease from severe COVID-19 infection is an increasingly common indication for lung transplantation (LT), but there are limited data on outcomes. We evaluated 1-year COVID-19 LT outcomes. METHODS: We identified all adult US LT recipients January 2020 to October 2022 in the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients, using diagnosis codes to identify recipients transplanted for COVID-19. We used multivariable regression to compare in-hospital acute rejection, prolonged ventilator support, tracheostomy, dialysis, and 1-year mortality between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 recipients, adjusting for donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics. RESULTS: LT for COVID-19 increased from 0.8% to 10.7% of total LT volume during 2020 to 2021. The number of centers performing LT for COVID-19 increased from 12 to 50. Recipients transplanted for COVID-19 were younger; were more likely to be male and Hispanic; were more likely to be on a ventilator, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and dialysis pre-LT; were more likely to receive bilateral LT; and had higher lung allocation score and shorter waitlist time than other recipients (all P values < .001). COVID-19 LT had higher risk of prolonged ventilator support (adjusted odds ratio, 2.28; P < .001), tracheostomy (adjusted odds ratio 5.3; P < .001), and longer length of stay (median, 27 vs 19 days; P < .001). Risk of in-hospital acute rejection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; P = .95) and 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .12) were similar for COVID-19 LTs and LTs for other indications, even accounting for center-level differences. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 LT is associated with higher risk of immediate postoperative complications but similar risk of 1-year mortality despite more severe pre-LT illness. These encouraging results support the ongoing use of LT for COVID-19-related lung disease.

The effect of allograft ischemic time on outcomes following bilateral, single, and reoperative lung transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether allograft ischemic times affect outcomes following bilateral, single, and redo lung transplantation. METHODS: A nationwide cohort of lung transplant recipients from 2005 through 2020 was examined using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network registry. The effects of standard (<6 hours) and extended (≥6 hours) ischemic times on outcomes following primary bilateral (n = 19,624), primary single (n = 688), redo bilateral (n = 8461), and redo single (n = 449) lung transplantation were analyzed. A priori subgroup analysis was performed in the primary and redo bilateral-lung transplant cohorts by further stratifying the extended ischemic time group into mild (≥6 and <8 hours), moderate (≥8 and <10 hours), and long (≥10 hours) subgroups. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, intubation at 72 hours' posttransplant, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support at 72 hours' posttransplant, and a composite variable of intubation or ECMO at 72 hours' posttransplant. Secondary outcomes included acute rejection, postoperative dialysis, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Recipients of allografts with ischemic times ≥6 hours experienced increased 30-day and 1-year mortality following primary bilateral-lung transplantation, but increased mortality was not observed following primary single, redo bilateral, or redo single-lung transplants. Extended ischemic times correlated with prolonged intubation or increased postoperative ECMO support in the primary bilateral, primary single, and redo bilateral-lung transplant cohorts but did not affect these outcomes following redo single-lung transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Since prolonged allograft ischemia correlates with worse transplant outcomes, the decision to use donor lungs with extended ischemic times must consider the specific benefits and risks associated with individual recipient factors and institutional expertise.

Outcomes of Lung Transplant Candidates Aged ≥70 Years During the Lung Allocation Score Era.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing age of lung transplant candidates, we studied waitlist and posttransplantation outcomes of candidates ≥70 years during the Lung Allocation Score era. METHODS: Adult lung transplant candidates from 2005 to 2020 in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included and stratified on the basis of age at listing into 18 to 59 years old, 60 to 69 years old, and ≥70 years old. Baseline characteristics, waitlist outcomes, and posttransplantation outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 37,623 candidates were included (52.3% aged 18-59 years, 40.6% aged 60-69 years, 7.1% aged ≥70 years). Candidates ≥70 years were more likely than younger candidates to receive a transplant (81.9% vs 72.7% [aged 60-69 years] vs 61.6% [aged 18-59 years]) and less likely to die or to deteriorate on the waitlist within 1 year (9.1% vs 10.1% [aged 60-69 years] vs 12.2% [aged 18-59 years]; P < .001). Donors for older recipients were more likely to be extended criteria (75.7% vs 70.1% [aged 60-69 years] vs 65.7% [aged 18-59 years]; P < .001). Recipients ≥70 years were found to have lower rates of acute rejection (6.7% vs 7.4% [aged 60-69 years] vs 9.2% [aged 18-59 years]; P < .001) and prolonged intubation (21.7% vs 27.4% [aged 60-69 years] vs 34.5% [aged 18-59 years]; P < .001). Recipients aged ≥70 years had increased 1-year (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.33]; P < .001), 3-year (aHR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.18-1.39]; P < .001), and 5-year mortality (aHR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.21-1.38]; P < .001) compared with recipients aged 60 to 69 years. CONCLUSIONS: Candidates ≥70 years had favorable waitlist and perioperative outcomes despite increased use of extended criteria donors. Careful selection of candidates and postoperative surveillance may improve posttransplantation survival in this population.

Racial Disparities in Waiting List Outcomes of Patients Listed for Lung Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The Lung Allocation Score, implemented in 2005, prioritized lung transplant candidates by medical urgency rather than waiting list time and was expected to improve racial disparities in transplant allocation. We evaluated whether racial disparities in lung transplant persisted after 2005. METHODS: We identified all wait-listed adult lung transplant candidates in the United States from 2005 through 2021 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We evaluated the association between race and receipt of a transplant by using a multivariable competing risk regression model adjusted for demographics, socioeconomic status, Lung Allocation Score, clinical measures, and time. We evaluated interactions between race and age, sex, socioeconomic status, and Lung Allocation Score. RESULTS: We identified 33,158 candidates on the lung transplant waiting list between 2005 and 2021: 27,074 White (82%), 3350 African American (10%), and 2734 Hispanic (8%). White candidates were older, had higher education levels, and had lower Lung Allocation Scores (P < .001). After multivariable adjustment, African American and Hispanic candidates were less likely to receive lung transplants than White candidates (African American: adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91; Hispanic: adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.87). Lung transplant was significantly less common among Hispanic candidates aged >65 years (P = .003) and non-White candidates from higher-poverty communities (African-American: P = .013; Hispanic: P =.0036). CONCLUSIONS: Despite implementation of the Lung Allocation Score, racial disparities persisted for wait-listed African American and Hispanic lung transplant candidates and differed by age and poverty status. Targeted interventions are needed to ensure equitable access to this life-saving intervention.

National utilization, trends, and lung transplant outcomes of static versus portable ex vivo lung perfusion platforms.

BACKGROUND: This study compared utilization and outcomes of the 2 widely utilized ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) platforms in the United States: a static platform and a portable platform. METHODS: Adult (age 18 years or older) bilateral lung-only transplants utilizing EVLP between February 28, 2018, and December 31, 2022, in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included. Predischarge acute rejection, intubation at 72 hours posttransplant, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 72 hours posttransplant, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours posttransplant, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality were evaluated using multivariable regressions. RESULTS: Overall, 607 (6.3%) lung transplants during the study period used EVLP (51.2% static, 48.8% portable). Static EVLP was primarily utilized in the eastern United States, whereas portable EVLP was primarily utilized in the western United States. Static EVLP donors were more likely to be donation after circulatory death (33.4% vs 26.0%; P = .005), have a >20 pack-year smoking history (13.5% vs 6.5%; P = .005), and be extended criteria donors (92.3% vs 85.0%; P = .013), whereas portable EVLP donors were more likely to be older than age 55 years (14.2% vs 8.0%; P = .02). Transplants utilizing the static and portable platforms had similar risk of acute rejection, intubation at 72 hours, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 72 hours, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours, and posttransplant mortality at 30 days and 1 year (all P values > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The static and portable platforms had significant differences in donor characteristics and geographic distributions of utilization. Despite this, posttransplant survival was similar between the 2 EVLP platforms.

To decline or not to decline: Consequences of decision-making regarding lung offers from donors with hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVE: Lung transplants from donors with hepatitis C (HCV D+) have excellent outcomes, but these organs continue to be declined. We evaluated whether (1) being listed to consider and (2) accepting versus declining HCV D+ offers provided a survival benefit to lung transplant candidates. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified all adult (≥18 years) lung transplant candidates 2016-2021 and compared waitlist mortality between those willing versus not willing to consider HCV D+ offers using competing risk regression. We identified all candidates offered an HCV D+ lung that was later accepted and followed them from offer decision until death or end-of-study. We estimated adjusted mortality risk of accepting versus declining an HCV D+ lung offer using propensity-weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2021, we identified 21,007 lung transplant candidates, 33.8% of whom were willing to consider HCV D+ offers. Candidates willing to consider HCV D+ offers had a 17% lower risk of waitlist mortality (subhazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.91, P < .001). Over the same period, 665 HCV D+ lung offers were accepted after being declined a total of 2562 times. HCV D+ offer acceptance versus decline was associated with a 20% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.96, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Considering HCV D+ lung offers was associated with a 17% lower risk of waitlist mortality, whereas accepting versus declining an HCV D+ lung offer was associated with a 20% lower risk of mortality. Centers and candidates should consider accepting suitable HCV D+ lung offers to optimize outcomes.

Lung Transplantation in Patients With COVID-19-The Early National Experience.

Lung transplant (LT) has become a viable option for COVID-19 patients suffering from end-stage Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). This analysis sought to describe the early national experience of COVID-19 patients who received LT and compare transplant characteristics and short-term outcomes of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS LT recipients. We queried the Organ Procurement and Transplantation database for adults (≥18 years old) receiving LT from January 2009 to March 31, 2022 with diagnoses of COVID-19 or ARDS. We identified 353 COVID-19 and 64 non-COVID-19 ARDS LT recipients. COVID-19 recipients were older (median age: 51, interquartile range [40-57] years vs 41 [26-52]; P < 0.001), more predominantly male (78% (n = 274) vs 55% (n = 35), P < 0.001), and had higher body mass indices (median 27.2 interquartile range [24.5-30.9] vs 25.4 [22.1-28.6]; P < 0.01) than non-COVID-19 ARDS recipients. COVID-19 LT recipients were less frequently reliant on extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation at 72 hours after transplant (26% (n = 80) vs 31% (n = 15), P < 0.001), and were less frequently dependent on dialysis post-transplant than non-COVID-19 ARDS LT recipients (14% (n = 43) vs 23% (n = 14); P = 0.01). Survival at 90 days post-transplant was comparable for the non-COVID ARDS (90%, n = 54) and COVID-19 (94%, n = 202) LT recipients with available follow-up (P = 0.17). LT appears to be a viable therapy for COVID-19 patients with end-stage lung disease. COVID-19 LT and non-COVID-19 ARDS LT recipients have comparable 90 days post-transplant survival.

Neuromonitoring detects brain injury in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited evidence on standardized protocols for optimal neurological monitoring methods in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We previously introduced protocolized noninvasive multimodal neuromonitoring using serial neurological examinations, electroencephalography, transcranial Doppler ultrasound, and somatosensory evoked potentials. The purpose of this study was to examine if standardized neuromonitoring is associated with detection of acute brain injury (ABI) and improved patient outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of ECMO patients who received neurocritical care consultation was performed and outcomes were reviewed. The cohort was stratified according to those who did not receive standardized neuromonitoring (era 1: 2016-2017) and those who received standardized neuromonitoring (era 2: 2017-2020). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between standardized neuromonitoring and ABI. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients (mean age, 54 years; 60% male) underwent ECMO (71% venoarterial-ECMO) in our institution, 70 in era 1 and 145 in era 2. The proportion of patients diagnosed with ABI were 23% in era 1 and 33% in era 2 (P = .12). In multivariable logistic regression, standardized neuromonitoring (odds ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12-4.48; P = .02) and pre-ECMO cardiac arrest (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.14-4.14; P = .02) were independently associated with ABI. There was a greater proportion of patients with good neurological outcomes when discharged alive in era 2 (54% vs 30%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized neuromonitoring was associated with increased ABIs in ECMO patients. Although neuromonitoring does not prevent ABI from occurring, it might prevent worsening with timely interventions (eg, anticoagulation management, optimizing oxygen delivery and blood pressure), leading to improved neurological outcomes at discharge.

Trends in use and three-year outcomes of hepatitis C virus-viremic donor lung transplants for hepatitis C virus-seronegative recipients.

OBJECTIVE: The feasibility and 6-month outcome safety of lung transplants (LTs) from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors for HCV-seronegative recipients (R-) were established in 2019, but longer-term safety and uptake of this practice nationally remain unknown. METHODS: We identified HCV-seronegative LT recipients (R-) 2015-2020 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We classified donors as seronegative (D-) or viremic (D+). We used χ2 testing, rank-sum testing, and Cox regression to compare posttransplant outcomes between HCV D+/R- and D-/R- LT recipients. RESULTS: HCV D+/R- LT increased from 2 to 97/year; centers performing HCV D+/R- LT increased from 1 to 25. HCV D+/R- versus HCV D-/R- LT recipients had more obstructive disease (35.7% vs 23.3%, P < .001), lower lung allocation score (36.5 vs 41.1, P < .001), and longer waitlist time (P = .002). HCV D+/R- LT had similar risk of acute rejection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.87; P = .58), extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (aOR, 1.94; P = .10), and tracheostomy (aOR, 0.42; P = .16); similar median hospital stay (P = .07); and lower risk of ventilator > 48 hours (aOR, 0.68; P = .006). Adjusting for donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics, risk of all-cause graft failure and mortality were similar at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years for HCV D+/R- versus HCV D-/R- LT (all P > .1), as well as for high- (≥20/year) versus low-volume LT centers and high- (≥5/year) versus low-volume HCV D+/R- LT centers (all P > .5). CONCLUSIONS: HCV D+/R- and HCV D-/R- LT have similar outcomes at 3 years posttransplant. These results underscore the safety of HCV D+/R- LT and the potential benefit of expanding this practice further.

Lung Volume Reduction Surgery Before Lung Transplantation: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is treatment option for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the second most common indication for lung transplantation (LTx) in the United States. Lung volume reduction surgery before LTx is controversial. Single-institution studies report contradicting results, and the impact of undergoing LVRS before LTx on outcomes after LTx is unclear. METHODS: We reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing database for all adults (aged more than 18 years) who underwent first-time LTx for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the lung allocation score era. We used patient demographic and clinical characteristics and lung allocation score to propensity match patients who did and patients who did not undergo LVRS before LTx. The primary exposure was prior LVRS. The primary outcome was graft failure after LTx. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4905 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease underwent LTx between May 2005 and March 2017. Of them, 107 patients (2.2%) underwent LVRS before LTx. Propensity matching generated 212 matches (106 LVRS+LTx, and 106 LTx only). Median survival was significantly longer in the LTx only cohort (6.5 vs 3.4 years, P = .034). Lung volume reduction surgery before lung transplantation was associated with significantly increased risk of graft failure after lung transplant (hazard ratio 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 2.60; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this national, propensity-matched analysis of LVRS before LTx, we show that LVRS is associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure. Patients who undergo LVRS and remain in need of LTx should be carefully assessed and followed postoperatively.

Palliative care in lung transplantation.

The role of palliative care in lung transplantation has grown exponentially in the past two decades. From assisting with evaluating and optimizing candidates for transplant, to playing a crucial role in patients requiring extracorporeal cardiopulmonary life support (ECLS) as a bridge to lung transplant, perioperatively, or even during their first year post-transplant, palliative care has been shown to be an effective if underutilized tool in the armamentarium used to care for lung transplant patients. For patients being considered for primary transplantation and for lung transplant recipients, palliative care can decrease symptom burden and help to lessen the psychological distress experienced by patients and family members. For older patients listed for transplant, palliative care can help address cognitive impairment, depression, and frailty. Patients listed for lung re-transplant also benefit from palliative care involvement to address frequent symptom exacerbations, hospitalizations, and higher morbidity and mortality. Even for organ donors and their families, palliative care can facilitate communication and provide support to the family. While palliative care use in lung transplantation may be gradually increasing, further work is necessary to optimally integrate palliative care into lung transplantation. Barriers to lung transplant patients receiving palliative care are multifactorial and include physician, patient, and institutional factors. The potential role of palliative care in every aspect of lung transplantation has made a knowledge of palliative care principles crucial for the lung transplant practitioner. In this review, we will clearly delineate the potential benefit of palliative care for the perioperative lung transplant patient and make an argument for its increased use in this patient population.

Ambient Air Pollution and Adverse Waitlist Events Among Lung Transplant Candidates.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution is associated with cardiopulmonary disease and death in the general population. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is particularly harmful due to its ability to penetrate into areas of gas exchange within the lungs. Persons with advanced lung disease are believed to be particularly susceptible to PM2.5 exposure, but only a few studies have examined the effect of exposure on this population. Here we investigate the association between PM2.5 exposure and adverse waitlist events among lung transplant (LT) candidates. METHODS: US registry data were used to identify LT candidates listed between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016. Annual PM2.5 concentration at year of listing was estimated for each candidate's ZIP Code using National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center Global Annual PM2.5 Grids. We estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios for adverse waitlist events, defined as death or removal, using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of the 15 075 included candidates, median age at listing was 60, 43.8% were female individuals, and 81.7% were non-Hispanic White. Median ZIP Code PM2.5 concentration was 9.06 µg/m3. When compared with those living in ZIP Codes with lower PM2.5 exposure (PM2.5 <10.53 µg/m3), candidates in ZIP Codes in the highest quartile of PM2.5 exposure (≥10.53 µg/m3) had 1.14-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.25) risk of adverse waitlist events. The result remained significant after adjusting for demographics, education, insurance, smoking, lung allocation score, body mass index, and blood type (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated ambient PM2.5 concentration was associated with adverse waitlist events among LT candidates. These findings highlight the impact of air pollution on clinical outcomes in this critically ill population.

The effect of the cystic fibrosis care center on outcomes after lung transplantation for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) who underwent lung transplant (LT) at a transplant center with an accredited Cystic Fibrosis Care Center (CFCC) in the United States. METHODS: We reviewed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for all adult patients with CF who received a first-time LT from 2005 to 2018. The primary outcome was graft failure. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis and adjusted multilevel Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate outcomes in CF patients undergoing lung transplantation at a CFCC. RESULTS: 2,573 patients with CF underwent a first time LT during the study period. Of the 68 lung transplantation centers, 50 were CFCCs (73.5%). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients who underwent lung transplantation at a hospital with an accredited CFCC had a 33% reduction in risk of death or re-transplantation compared to those transplanted at a hospital without an accredited CFCC (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.82, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: People with CF who undergo LT at a transplant center with a CFCC have improved graft survival and decreased need for re-transplantation compared to those who undergo LT at a non-CFCC, independent of volume.

ISHLT consensus document on lung transplantation in patients with connective tissue disease: Part II: Cardiac, surgical, perioperative, operative, and post-operative challenges and management statements.

Patients with connective tissue disease (CTD) present unique surgical, perioperative, operative, and postoperative challenges related to the often underlying severe pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation-supported consensus document on lung transplantation in patients with CTD standardization addresses the surgical challenges and relevant cardiac involvement in the perioperative, operative, and postoperative management in patients with CTD.