[Follow-up strategies for lung transplant recipients in France]. / Suivi partagé des patients transplantés pulmonaires.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation (LT) requires sustained care for a frequently polypathological condition. Follow-up is focused on three main issues: 1/stability of respiratory function; 2/comorbidity management; 3/preventive medicine. About 3000 LT patients in France are treated in 11 LT centers. Given the increased size of the LT recipient cohort, follow-up might be partially shared with peripheral centers. METHODS: This paper presents the suggestions of a working group of the SPLF (French-speaking respiratory medicine society) on possible modalities of shared follow-up. RESULTS: While the main LT center is tasked with centralizing follow-up, particularly the choice of optimal immunosuppression, an identified peripheral center (PC) may serve as an alternative to deal with acute events, comorbidities and routine assessment. Communication between the different centers should be free-flowing. Shared follow-up may be offered from the 3rd postoperative year to stable and consenting patients, whereas unstable and non-observant patients are poor candidates. CONCLUSION: These guidelines may serve as a reference for any pneumologist wishing to effectively contribute to follow-up, even and especially subsequent to lung transplant.

Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Lung Transplantation: Clinical Outcomes and Donor-Specific Antibody Characteristics.

In the context of lung transplant (LT), because of diagnostic difficulties, antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) remains a matter of debate. We retrospectively analyzed an LT cohort at Foch Hospital to demonstrate the impact of AMR on LT prognosis. AMR diagnosis requires association of clinical symptoms, donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), and C4d(+) staining and/or histological patterns consistent with AMR. Prospective categorization split patients into four groups: (i) DSA positive, AMR positive (DSA(pos) AMR(pos) ); (ii) DSA positive, AMR negative (DSA(pos) AMR(neg) ); (iii) DSA limited, AMR negative (DSA(Lim) ; equal to one specificity, with mean fluorescence intensity of 500-1000 once); and (iv) DSA negative, AMR negative (DSA(neg) ). AMR treatment consisted of a combination of plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin and rituximab. Among 206 transplanted patients, 10.7% were DSA(pos) AMR(pos) (n = 22), 40.3% were DSA(pos) AMR(neg) (n = 84), 6% were DSA(Lim) (n = 13) and 43% were DSA(neg) (n = 88). Analysis of acute cellular rejection at month 12 showed higher cumulative numbers (mean plus or minus standard deviation) in the DSA(pos) AMR(pos) group (2.1 ± 1.7) compared with DSA(pos) AMR(neg) (1 ± 1.2), DSA(Lim) (0.75 ± 1), and DSA(neg) (0.7 ± 1.23) groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated AMR as a risk factor for chronic lung allograft dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR] 8.7) and graft loss (HR 7.56) for DSA(pos) AMR(pos) patients. Our results show a negative impact of AMR on LT clinical course and advocate for an early active diagnostic approach and evaluation of therapeutic strategies to improve prognosis.

Outcome of patients with interstitial lung disease admitted to the intensive care unit.

INTRODUCTION: The outcome of acute respiratory failure (ARF) affecting patients with various interstitial lung diseases (ILD) is poorly defined particularly in those with drug-induced ILD (DI-ILD). We investigated this issue focusing on fibrosing idiopathic interstitial pneumonitis (FIIP) and DI-ILD. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study of patients with ILD admitted in a single center ICU. The primary end-point was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 72 subjects who fell into 3 diagnostic groups: DI-ILD (n=20), FIIP (n=28) and miscellaneous (M-ILD) (n=24). In-hospital mortality rates were 40% (n=8/20), 68% (n=19/28), and 25% (n=6/24) for DI-ILD, FIIP and M-ILD, respectively, (p=0.006). It reached, 64% (n=7/11), 100% (n=17/17) and 60% (n=6/10), respectively, in subjects on mechanical ventilation (p=0.007). In multivariate analysis, the need for mechanical ventilation (OR= 35; [95% CI, 5-255]), the type of ILD (FIIP vs miscellaneous) (OR=22; [95% CI, 3-147]) and high-dose steroids during ICU stay (OR=0.19; [95% CI, 0.04-0.99]) were independent determinants of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: This study, while confirming the poor prognosis of FIIP patients in ICU, highlights the better prognosis of DI-ILD and M-ILD even though severity criteria on admission are similar in these 3 groups. These data impact on the management of these patients in ICU in whom a proper diagnostic of the underlying condition is crucial.