Survival outcomes following urgent lung transplantation in France and the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Lung graft allocation can be based on a score (Lung Allocation Score) as in the USA or sequential proposals combined with a discrete priority model as in France. We aimed to analyse the impact of allocation policy on the outcome of urgent lung transplantation (LT). METHODS: US United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and French Cristal databases were retrospectively reviewed to analyse LT performed between 2007 and 2017. We analysed the mortality risk of urgent LT by fitting Cox models and adjusted Restricted Mean Survival Time. We then compared the outcome after urgent LT in the UNOS and Cristal groups using a propensity score matching. RESULTS: After exclusion of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema and redo LT, 3775 and 12 561 patients underwent urgent LT and non-urgent LT in the USA while 600 and 2071 patients underwent urgent LT and non-urgent LT in France. In univariate analysis, urgent LT was associated with an HR for death of 1.24 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.48) in the Cristal group and 1.12 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.19) in the UNOS group. In multivariate analysis, the effect of urgent LT was attenuated and no longer statistically significant in the Cristal database (HR 1.1 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.33)) while it remained constant and statistically significant in the UNOS database (HR 1.12 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.2)). Survival comparison of urgent LT patients between the two countries was significantly different in favour of the UNOS group (1-year survival rates 84.1% (80.9%-87.3%) vs 75.4% (71.8%-79.1%) and 3-year survival rates 66.3% (61.9%-71.1%) vs 62.7% (58.5%-67.1%), respectively). CONCLUSION: Urgent LT is associated with adverse outcome in the USA and in France with a better prognosis in the US score-based system taking post-transplant survival into account. This difference between two healthcare systems is multifactorial.

Size-matching in lung transplantation by computed tomography for end-stage interstitial disease: a retrospective analysis.

Background: Size matching between donors and recipients is a major issue in lung transplantation (LTx), especially in patients with restrictive lung disease (RLD). This study aims to evaluate computed tomography (CT) as an additional method for defining the total lung capacity (TLC) in patients with end-stage interstitial disease awaiting LTx. Methods: Clinical data and CT scans from patients who underwent a first LTx from January 2014 to July 2018 in Bichat Hospital, Paris, were prospectively included in a database. CT TLC (ctTLC) was retrospectively calculated after semi-automatic contouring of the parenchyma and compared with measured TLC (mTLC) and predicted TLC (pTLC) values. Results: The study group included 89 patients (male:female =68:21; mean age, 59.5±10.0 years). The time between pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and CT scan was 162±270 days [median, 67 days; interquartile range (IQR), 0-233 days]. ctTLC was inferior to mTLC and pTLC (respectively 2,979±1,001 mL, 3,530±1,077 and 6,381±955 mL, P<0.001). The relative difference between CT lung volume (ctLV) and measured lung volume (mLV) was higher on the left than on the right side (25.4% vs. 16.3%, respectively, P=0.11). After exclusion of two outliers, we found a significant correlation between ctTLC and mTLC (r=0.762, P<0.001). Conclusions: CT volume is a feasible method to assess TLC in patients with end-stage interstitial disease awaiting LTx. This study highlights potential size-mismatch for graft selection before LTx and opens the perspective of a prospective trial evaluating impact of size-matching by donor-recipient (D-R) ctTLC ratio on postoperative outcomes.

Outcomes and costs with the introduction of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery in public hospitals.

Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is an effective treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but the effects of its implementation in university hospital networks has not been described. We analyzed the early clinical outcomes, estimated costs, and revenues associated with three robotic systems implemented in the Paris Public Hospital network. A retrospective study included patients who underwent RATS for NSCLC in 2019 and 2020. Ninety-day morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, and hospital revenues were described. Economic analyses were conducted either from the hospital center or from the French health insurance system perspectives. Cost drivers were tested using univariate and multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty over in-hospital length of stay (LOS), number of robotic surgeries per year, investment cost, operating room occupancy time, maintenance cost, and commercial discount. The study included 188 patients (65.8 ± 9.3 years; Charlson 4.1 ± 1.4; stage I 76.6%). Median in-hospital LOS was 6 days [5-9.5], 90-day mortality was 1.6%. Mean hospital expenses and revenues were €12,732 ± 4914 and €11,983 ± 5708 per patient, respectively. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with hospital costs were body mass index, DLCO, major complications, and transfer to intensive care unit. Sensitivity analyses showed that in-hospital LOS (€11,802-€15,010) and commercial discounts on the list price (€11,458-€12,732) had an important impact on costs. During the first 2 years following the installation of three robotic systems in Paris Public Hospitals, the clinical outcomes of RATS for NSCLC have been satisfactory. Without commercial discount, hospital expenses would have exceeded hospital revenues.Clinical registration number CNIL, N°2221601, CERC-SFCTCV-2021-07-20-Num17_MOPI_robolution.