Two Staged Single Lung Transplants in the Current Era: A United Network for Organ Sharing Study.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that outcomes after 2 staged, contralateral single lung transplantation procedures (SSLTs) may be equivalent to those of double lung transplantation (DLT) by capitalizing on the known long-term survival advantages of DLT. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing data set (1987-2018), the largest national data set available, the outcomes of 278 SSLTs were retrospectively analyzed and compared with the outcomes of 21,121 standard DLTs. RESULTS: During SSLT, the median interval between the 2 transplants was 960 days, and the indication for the second transplant was most often chronic lung allograft dysfunction (n = 148; 53.2%) or the same disease that necessitated the first transplant (n = 81; 29.1%). The patients who underwent SSLT were significantly older and had a higher baseline creatinine level than the patients who underwent DLT. Most posttransplantation short-term outcomes were equivalent between the second stage of SSLT and DLT, but renal insufficiency requiring hemodialysis was notably higher after SSLT. There were no differences in long-term survival. In multivariate analysis, baseline creatinine, O2 support at rest, ventilator support at the time of the second transplantation, and posttransplantation renal insufficiency requiring dialysis were independent predictors of 1-year mortality after SSLT. CONCLUSIONS: Over a study period of 30 years, long-term survival after SSLT was comparable with survival after DLT. With further analysis of individual risk profiles, including the contributions of preoperative renal function and functional status, SSLT can be a valuable option for patients who would have undergone single lung transplantation to reap the long-term benefits of a second transplant.

Lung Transplantation for COVID-19 Pulmonary Sequelae.

BACKGROUND: The role of lung transplantation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related lung failure is evolving as the pandemic persists. METHODS: From January 2021 to April 2022, 20 patients (median age 62 y; range 31-77) underwent lung transplantation for COVID-related lung failure at our institution. We reviewed their clinical and intraoperative characteristics and early outcomes including postoperative complications. RESULTS: Eleven patients (55%) had chronic lung disease when they contracted COVID-19. All 20 patients required hospitalization for antivirus treatment. Median lung allocation score was 74.7 (33.1-94.0). Thirteen patients (65%) underwent single-lung transplants, and 7 patients (35%) underwent double-lung transplants. Concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery was performed in 2 (10%) patients because of severe coronary artery disease. Postoperatively, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was needed in 3 patients (15%) because of severe primary graft dysfunction; all were eventually weaned. Ten patients (50%) experienced deep venous thrombosis, and 1 eventually developed a major pulmonary embolus. The median intensive care unit stay and hospital stays were 6.5 d (3-44) and 18 d (7-77), respectively. During a median follow-up of 201 d (47-418), we experienced 1 late mortality due to COVID-19-related myocarditis. Among the 13 patients with single-lung transplant, 5 demonstrated improvement in their native lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplantation yielded favorable early outcomes in a heterogeneous patient cohort that included older patients, obese patients, and patients with coronary artery disease or preexisting chronic lung disease. Our data also shed light on the transforming role of lung transplantation for the pulmonary sequelae of a complex multisystem COVID-19 disorder.

Comparison of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed in the catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach) versus hybrid operating room (standard approach): outcomes and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF TAVR) performed in a catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach [MA]) with TF TAVR performed in a hybrid operating room (standard approach [SA]). BACKGROUND: A MA-TF TAVR can be performed without general anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography, or a surgical hybrid room. The outcomes and cost of MA-TF TAVR compared with those of the SA have not been described. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective, percutaneous TF TAVR using the Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were studied. Baseline characteristics, outcomes, and hospital costs of MA-TF TAVR and SA-TF TAVR were compared. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were studied (MA-TF TAVR, n = 70 and SA-TF TAVR, n = 72). There were no differences in baseline comorbidities (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 11.4 ± 5.8; p = 0.35). All procedures in the MA-TF TAVR group were successful; 1 patient was intubated. Three patients in the SA-TF TAVR group had procedure-related death. Procedure room time (150 ± 48 min vs. 218 ± 56 min, p < 0.001), total intensive care unit time (22 h vs. 28 h, p < 0.001), length of stay from procedure to discharge (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), and cost ($45,485 ± 14,397 vs. $55,377 ± 22,587, p < 0.001) were significantly less in the MA-TF TAVR group. Mortality at 30 days was not significantly different in the MA-TF TAVR group (0 vs. 6%, p = 0.12) and 30-day stroke/transient ischemic attack was similar (4.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.35). Moderate or severe paravalvular leak and device success were similar in the MA-TF TAVR and SA-TF TAVR groups (3% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.4 and 90% vs. 88%, p = 0.79, respectively) at 30 days. At a median follow-up of 435 days, there was no significant difference in survival (MA-TF TAVR, 83% vs. SA-TF TAVR, 82%; p = 0.639). CONCLUSIONS: MA-TF TAVR can be performed with minimal morbidity and mortality and equivalent effectiveness compared with SA-TF TAVR. The shorter length of stay and lower resource use with MA-TF TAVR significantly lowers hospital costs.

Repeat sternotomy for surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarian patients with aortic valve stenosis and previous coronary artery bypass graft operation: what is the operative risk?

OBJECTIVES: There are limited data defining the risk of repeat sternotomy for surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarian patients with aortic valve stenosis and previous coronary artery bypass graft operation. Our study assesses the risk of operation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 629 octogenarian patients with aortic stenosis who received isolated surgical aortic valve replacement between January 1993 and December 2011. Patient characteristics included age 83.7±3.2 years, male sex in 322 patients (51.2%), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 6.2%±4.4%. Operations included a primary sternotomy in 518 patients (82.4%) and a repeat sternotomy in 111 patients (17.6%) who had previous coronary artery bypass graft operation. Patients with other cardiac operations were excluded from the study. RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer with repeat sternotomy (88.0±45.7 minutes) in comparison to primary sternotomy (66.5±25.1; P<.001); but there was no difference in the aortic crossclamp time (51.1±19.7 minutes vs 49.2±17.7 minutes; P=.282). Stroke occurred in 3 patients (2.7%) following repeat sternotomy and in 10 (1.9%) after primary sternotomy (P=.710). Rates of myocardial infarction, renal failure, and reoperation for bleeding were similar between the 2 groups. Operative mortality occurred in 7 patients (6.4%) after repeat sternotomy and in 19 patients (3.7%) following primary sternotomy (P=.196). Repeat sternotomy was not predictive of operative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat sternotomy and surgical aortic valve replacement can be done with low risk in octogenarian patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft operation.

Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in moderate risk patients: implications for determination of equipoise in the transcatheter era.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the contemporary outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a moderate surgical risk population. METHODS: We studied 502 consecutive adults who had undergone isolated SAVR from January 2002 to June 2011 for severe aortic valve stenosis with a Society of Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of mortality of 4% to 8%. We included concomitant coronary artery bypass and aortic annular enlargement but not other concomitant procedures. The updated Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions were used, as appropriate. RESULTS: The median age was 80 years (range, 49-96), 323 (64.3%) had New York Heart Association class III-IV symptoms, and 101 (20.1%) had undergone previous coronary artery bypass grafting. The mean predicted risk of mortality was 5.6%. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 270 (53.8%). Re-exploration for bleeding occurred in 29 (5.8%), stroke in 9 (1.8%), and vascular complications in 2 (0.4%). In the cohort, 14 early deaths (2.8%) occurred. During follow-up (1174 days), 175 patients died. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the significant independent predictors of mid-term death included chronic pulmonary disease (hazard ratio, 2.00, 95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.84; P < .001), peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.37; P = .029), and atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.65; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: SAVR in moderate-risk patients is currently performed with one half of the early predicted risk (2.8%) and a low likelihood of complications, including a 1.8% incidence of stroke. Patients counseled for randomization to transcatheter aortic valve insertion should be informed of the excellent early to mid-term outcomes of SAVR, particularly those without pulmonary impairment, peripheral vascular disease, or atrial fibrillation.