OBJECTIVE: Lung preservation quality is a crucial factor in the success of a lung transplant. In October 2000 we stopped using Euro-Collins (EC) lung preservation solution and began using a low potassium dextran solution (Perfadex [PER]). The objective of the present study was to assess outcome with the 2 solutions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed the results of 68 lung transplants in which PER was used and compared the results with those of a historical control group consisting of the same number of transplants in which EC was used. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the ages and diagnoses of the recipients in the 2 groups. Waiting list time was longer in the PER group. The most frequent cause of donor death in the EC group was craniocerebral trauma (62%), whereas in the PER group it was cerebral hemorrhage (54%). In the PER group more double lung transplants were performed than in the EC group (78% and 53% respectively; P=.002). There were no differences in the use of extracorporal circulation or ischemia time between the 2 groups. Early graft function, based on the patient's oxygenation index (ratio of PaO2 to inspired oxygen fraction [FiO2]) on arrival at the intensive care unit, was similar in the 2 groups. The incidence of severe graft failure (PaO2/FiO2<150 mm Hg) was significantly lower in the PER group than in the EC group (16% and 37% respectively; P=.01). No significant differences in hours of mechanical ventilation or postoperative mortality between the 2 patient series were found. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the newer lung preservation solution --PER-- led to a 50% lower incidence of severe ischemia-reperfusion graft injury during the early recovery from lung transplantation.
OBJECTIVE: Lung preservation quality is a crucial factor in the success of a lung transplant. In October 2000 we stopped using Euro-Collins (EC) lung preservation solution and began using a low potassium dextran solution (Perfadex [PER]). The objective of the present study was to assess outcome with the 2 solutions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed the results of 68 lung transplants in which PER was used and compared the results with those of a historical control group consisting of the same number of transplants in which EC was used. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the ages and diagnoses of the recipients in the 2 groups. Waiting list time was longer in the PER group. The most frequent cause of donordeath in the EC group was craniocerebral trauma (62%), whereas in the PER group it was cerebral hemorrhage (54%). In the PER group more double lung transplants were performed than in the EC group (78% and 53% respectively; P=.002). There were no differences in the use of extracorporal circulation or ischemia time between the 2 groups. Early graft function, based on the patient's oxygenation index (ratio of PaO2 to inspired oxygen fraction [FiO2]) on arrival at the intensive care unit, was similar in the 2 groups. The incidence of severe graft failure (PaO2/FiO2<150 mm Hg) was significantly lower in the PER group than in the EC group (16% and 37% respectively; P=.01). No significant differences in hours of mechanical ventilation or postoperative mortality between the 2 patient series were found. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the newer lung preservation solution --PER-- led to a 50% lower incidence of severe ischemia-reperfusion graft injury during the early recovery from lung transplantation.
Authors: Shampa Chatterjee; Gary F Nieman; Jason D Christie; Aron B Fisher Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 5.464