Impact of dual thoracic recovery from circulatory death donors on heart and lung transplant outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Concomitant heart and lung recovery can result in increased operative complexity, ischemic time, and competition for resources and anatomic territory. Dual thoracic recovery from circulatory death donors may have additional risks that are not fully understood. We investigated the effects of dual heart and lung recovery from circulatory death donors on thoracic transplant outcomes. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we categorized all adult thoracic circulatory death donor transplants from 2019 to 2023 by whether the donor heart, lung, or both (dual donors) were recovered. Heart and lung transplant outcomes were compared between dual recovery donors and heart-only or lung-only donors, respectively, using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Of the 2513 donors included, 42.9% were heart-only, 45.0% were lung-only, and 12.0% were dual donors. Recipients of dual versus heart-only donors had similar likelihood of post-transplant dialysis (18.9% vs 18.3%, P = .84), likelihood of stroke (2.9% vs 4.7%, P = .34), and 2-year risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.90-1.47], P = .26), but lower likelihood of acute rejection (10.2% vs 16.1%, P = .04). Recipients of dual and lung-only donors had similar likelihood of predischarge acute rejection (7.6% vs 8.5%, P = .70), intubation at 72 hours (38.9% vs 45.1%, P = .13), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 72 hours (13.1% vs 18.1%, P = .11), as well as 2-year risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.74-1.82], P = .52). CONCLUSIONS: Recovering both the heart and lungs from a circulatory death donor does not negatively impact transplant outcomes. Outcomes in this population should continue to be investigated as more data and longer-term follow-up become available.

Multi-institutional beta testing of a novel cervical esophagogastric anastomosis simulator.

Objective: A novel simulator developed to offer hands-on practice for the stapled side-to-side cervical esophagogastric anastomosis was tested previously in a single-center study that supported its value in surgical education. This multi-institutional trial was undertaken to evaluate validity evidence from 6 independent thoracic surgery residency programs. Methods: After a virtual session for simulation leaders, learners viewed a narrated video of the procedure and then alternated as surgeon or first assistant. Using an online survey, perceived value was measured across fidelity domains: physical attributes, realism of materials, realism of experience, value, and relevance. Objective assessment included time, number of sutures tearing, bubble test, and direct inspection. Comparison across programs was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: Surveys were completed by 63 participants as surgeons (17 junior and 20 senior residents, 18 fellows, and 8 faculty). For 3 of 5 tasks, mean ratings of 4.35 to 4.44 correlated with "somewhat easy" to "very easy" to perform. The interrupted outer layer of the anastomosis rated lowest, suggesting this task was the most difficult. The simulator was rated as a highly valuable training tool. For the objective measurements of performance, "direct inspection" rated highest followed by "time." A total of 90.5% of participants rated the simulator as ready for use with only minor improvements. Conclusions: Results from this multi-institutional study suggest the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis simulator is a useful adjunct for training and assessment. Further research is needed to determine its value in assessing competence for independent operating and associations between improved measured performance and clinical outcomes.

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.

Racial disparities among patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the pre-Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Coronavirus Disease 2019 eras: A retrospective registry review.

Objectives: Although many studies have addressed such disparities caused by COVID-19, to our knowledge, no study has focused on the association of race on outcomes for patients with COVID-19 requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. The goal of this study was to assess association of race on death and duration on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in both the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry and included adults (≥18 years) who required venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between January 2019 and April 2021. We performed descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. Our primary outcomes were death and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation duration. Results: A total of 7477 patients were included after excluding 340 patients (4.3%) who were missing race data. In the COVID-19 era, 1474 of 2777 COVID-19-positive patients (53.1%) died. Our regression model suggested somewhat of a protective effect on death for Black and multiple race patients. Additionally, a diagnosis of COVID-19 and patients in the COVID-19 era in general, irrespective of COVID-19 diagnosis, had higher odds of death. Hispanic patients had the longest average venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation run times. Conclusions: Our study using data from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry provides updated data on patients supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras between 2019 and 2021 with a focus on race. Patients in the COVID-19 era group also had higher mortality compared with those in the pre-COVID-19 era even after being adjusted for COVID-19 diagnosis. Black and multiple races appeared somewhat protective in terms of death. Hispanic race was associated with longer venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation duration.

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.

A dedicated robotic bedside physician assistant significantly enhances trainee console operating time in general thoracic surgery.

Objective: As trainees rotate through thoracic subspecialties within their curricula, a crucial portion of their robotic training consists of actual console operating time. The more time spent on the surgeon console, the greater the development will be through the course of their training. Implementing a physician assistant at the bedside may increase the operative console time for the trainee and develop robotic skills in a more expeditious rate. The objective was to evaluate the impact a designated robotic physician assistant can have on trainee console learning opportunity. Methods: Operating room data collected consisted of all robotic general thoracic surgical cases that trainees participated in with and without a physician assistant present. Metrics regarding case efficiency included anesthesia ready-to-incision, incision-to-console, and raw resident console times. By using PRISM software, a nonparametric t test was used to analyze each averaged data group compared between when a physician assistant was present and not present. Results: The mean resident console time without and with a physician assistant assist was 45.8 minutes and 80.9 minutes, respectively (P < .0001). The average portion of a case performed by a trainee similarly without and with a physician assistant present was 28.0% and 77.1%, respectively (P < .0001). Case efficiency metrics between physician assistant presence cohorts showed no difference. Conclusions: Thoracic surgical trainees have increased opportunity for robotic skill development within a fellowship or resident program curriculum when a designated robotic physician assistant is present in the operating room. These findings are significant for the improvement of residency and fellowship robotic training models moving forward by incorporating robotic-specialized physician assistants in academic institutions.