Ex vivo lung perfusion in donation after circulatory death: A post hoc analysis of the Normothermic Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion as an Assessment of Extended/Marginal Donors Lungs trial.

OBJECTIVE: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors offer the ability to expand the lung donor pool and ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) further contributes to this ability by allowing for additional evaluation and resuscitation of these extended criteria donors. We sought to determine the outcomes of recipients receiving organs from DCD EVLP donors in a multicenter setting. METHODS: This was an unplanned post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized trial that took place during 2011 to 2017 with 3 years of follow-up. Patients were placed into 3 groups based off procurement strategy: brain-dead donor (control), brain-dead donor evaluated by EVLP, and DCD donors evaluated by EVLP. The primary outcomes were severe primary graft dysfunction at 72 hours and survival. Secondary outcomes included select perioperative outcomes, and 1-year and 3-years allograft function and quality of life measures. RESULTS: The DCD EVLP group had significantly higher incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction at 72 hours (P = .03), longer days on mechanical ventilation (P < .001) and in-hospital length of stay (P = .045). Survival at 3 years was 76.5% (95% CI, 69.2%-84.7%) for the control group, 68.3% (95% CI, 58.9%-79.1%) for the brain-dead donor group, and 60.7% (95% CI, 45.1%-81.8%) for the DCD group (P = .36). At 3-year follow-up, presence observed bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome or quality of life metrics did not differ among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although DCD EVLP allografts might not be appropriate to transplant in every candidate recipient, the expansion of their use might afford recipients stagnant on the waitlist a viable therapy.

Causes, Preventability, and Cost of Unplanned Rehospitalizations Within 30 Days of Discharge After Lung Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned rehospitalizations (UR) within 30 days of discharge are common after lung transplantation. It is unknown whether UR represents preventable gaps in care or necessary interventions for complex patients. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence, causes, risk factors, and preventability of UR after initial discharge after lung transplantation. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective cohort study. Subjects completed a modified short physical performance battery to assess frailty at listing and at initial hospital discharge after transplantation and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory at discharge. For each UR, a study staff member and the patient's admitting or attending clinician used an ordinal scale (0, not; 1, possibly; 2, definitely preventable) to rate readmission preventability. A total sum score of 2 or higher defined a preventable UR. RESULTS: Of the 90 enrolled patients, 30 (33.3%) had an UR. The single most common reasons were infection (7 [23.3%]) and atrial tachyarrhythmia (5 [16.7%]). Among the 30 URs, 9 (30.0%) were deemed preventable. Unplanned rehospitalization that happened before day 30 were more likely to be considered preventable than those between days 30 and 90 (30.0% versus 6.2%, P = 0.04). Discharge frailty, defined as short physical performance battery less than 6, was the only variable associated with UR on multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-11.8; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although clinicians do not rate the majority of UR after lung transplant as preventable, discharge frailty is associated with UR. Further research should identify whether modification of discharge frailty can reduce UR.

Economic evaluation of everolimus vs. azathioprine at one year after de novo heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus decreases acute rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy after heart transplantation. We compared within-trial costs and resource use over 1 yr of follow-up in de novo heart transplant patients randomized to everolimus 1.5 mg/d (n = 209), everolimus 3.0 mg/d (n = 211), or azathioprine (n = 214). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Resource use data were collected prospectively for 634 patients from 14 countries. We used the nonparametric bootstrap method to test for differences in mean costs and to estimate confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Everolimus patients had lower incidence of efficacy failure compared with azathioprine patients (41.6%, everolimus 1.5 mg; 32.2%, everolimus 3.0 mg; 52.8%, azathioprine). Compared with patients receiving azathioprine, everolimus patients spent more days in the hospital [36.3 d for everolimus 1.5 mg/d (p = 0.21); 38.4 d for everolimus 3.0 mg/d (p = 0.01); 32.2 d for azathioprine]. Mean total costs, excluding the study medications, were not significantly different among treatment groups ($72 065 for everolimus 1.5 mg; $72 631 for everolimus 3.0 mg; $70 815 for azathioprine). CONCLUSIONS: Over 1 yr of follow-up after heart transplantation, everolimus did not significantly increase treatment costs, excluding the costs of the study medications, while reducing efficacy failure. Longer follow-up and the cost of everolimus are required to fully evaluate the cost-effectiveness of everolimus vs. azathioprine in post-transplant maintenance.